Seems like there is a lot of persecution complex to go around if both atheists and the religious are crying foul. But there is a third group -- people who don't participate in religions and don't care if others do. Statistically only 40% of Americans are regularly affiliated with an organized religion and people claim to go to church twice as often as they actually do.

Jesse Ventura famously said:

and I look forward to the day when it matters much less, if at all, whether one is a believer or not.

As to Jesse Ventura, I wouldn't really use him as a guidepost for much and I think he furthers the divide with statements like this. He later retracted/clarified this statement to make it less vitriolic.

He did not "come out" as an atheist until he was out of office, BTW. He claimed to be a christian, just one without a church, during his election and terms in office.

That's kind of consistent with the point the author is trying to make.

It is only when that participation in the religion starts affecting our lives that it becomes a problem. I don't care what anyone believes. Just don't act like because you have a religious belief that entitles you to some special treatment, that you have to think that those without those beliefs are somehow less, and that your beliefs should be the basis for laws and public policy.

You are seriously using Ventura as the basis for society being ready to accept atheists?

If he'd said it before the election it probably would've cost him votes.

will cost you a few votes.

without pandering to religious voters on both sides of the aisle. That's the much bigger problem. Mark my words, when the midterms get closer, right-wing fundie nutjobs and progressive religious voters will all have politicians sucking up to them in order to get their votes.

about 30 years ago, is coming back to center.

I think the voting populace is sick and tired of religion in their politics. While there will be a group that will still cling to it, I predict that smart politicians will tread carefully when it comes to making religion the focus of their campaigns.

But we shall see.

all elected atheists

Culbert Olson was elected as a State Senator in California in 1934, and was elected governor in 1939, long before America lost its collective mind wrt the religious beliefs of its candidates. Furthermore, according to Gore Vidal, Thomas Gore's grandson:

Having lived through that, I can definitely say there have been much worse governors. Ventura had lots of dumb ideas but at the same time he would not compromise on reproductive or church-state issues. The Republicans hated him for that, so it wasn't all bad.

a few children who, at the mature and experienced age of 6 or so decided on atheism as something other than a normal childhood rebellion.

Religion is every bit as much a cultural thing as a spiritual one, as every secular Jew with a yarmulke or prayer shawl in a closet somewhere can tell you.

Having grown up in a normally "religious" family and going to Lutheran grade and high schools, I can fairly say that none of us actually talked about the specifics of religion with each other or seemed to care much. And we all had our doubts about some of the more outlandish Bible stories, which led to more doubts about the whole thing. None of us, at the time, however, seemed ready to jump up and say for sure God is a fairy tale. It seemed like an irrational risk to ourselves in this life and any possible life after.

That came later at City College, heavily influenced by some of those those secular Jews I mentioned who had no problem preaching atheism. But, atheist or not, most would gladly sit shiva because you're still a Jew, and that's what you did to honor your family.
And the atheist preaching became as boring and stylized as the religious preaching we were all too familiar with.

I know quite a few atheists personally, it happens when you join a Quaker meeting and eventually you're on the board of a UU church, but none of them make a big deal of it and few even mention it. Believers don't talk much about their beliefs, either. That's probably the way it should be these day.

But I am entertaining the idea that religiosity (or the state of believing or not believing) may be inherent to some degree. While there is no doubt that there is a huge cultural variable at play, I often wonder if someone can really choose to believe or not believe.

In light of this, I am not that anxious to write off what the very young may have to say about it.

If it is something with some similarity to sexuality, might one know or have a sense of where they fall in the spectrum at a relatively young age?

At any rate, the young should be given the opportunity to ask questions and not be ostracized or punished for doing so, imo.

I was raised by a minister in a parsonage and was deeply involved in the church and it's activities. But my recollection is that the major focus was always on the social justice, civil rights, anti-war aspects of religion. I have little recollection of there being much focus on believing in a god, per se.

Many, if not most, of the people I know will identify as something when it comes to religion. I know a few that will at times pontificate about their world view, but really no one that wants to foist there belief or lack of belief on anyone else.

And I agree. That's the way it should be.

their brains and personalities are growing with their bodies and they haven't yet learned how to properly lie about things. They often have insights that we have lost or hidden as we "mature." They are naturally curious, and have their own, if immature, bullshit filters. And, of course, they have many of the basics of what sort of person they will become already there.

As adults, we have a responsibility to listen to them and give them proper answers to their questions. "Because I said so" answers are a problem, even when the questions come at a bad time or we don't have good answers.

In modern times, I see religious institutions as not so much armies of God, but as institutions that preserve and introduce our kids to some fundamental social constructs. They learn about ceremony and tradition and historical significance. They learn about personal relationships and group dynamics. (If done right, of course.)

The schools might pick up some of the the slack if we stopped fighting over them, but there hasn't been much else that's been so pervasive and touches so many kids in the formative years.

I did not raise my children in a church and tried very hard to keep them in public schools.

But for reasons that are complicated, two of them ended up in religious schools at points in there lives.

There they did learn about the ceremony, tradition, historical significance and how those applied to their relationships with others and the world.

All in all, it turned out ok.

it is because I see my faith as personal - applied to me and not a law for others. I actually think that hatred toward other groups is a sin in my religion.

That could be because I grew up during a time when preachers were trying to tell us that to have anything to do with any group that was not in my own church was forbidden. Yet we were all in public schools together. Most of us learned that the preachers were wrong and went out own ways. We dated/married outside our religions. We met other races in college. We even finally got to learn about homosexuality - something that was well hidden in the closet at that time.

The 50-60s were an eye opening time. We left the enclosed nests and got to see the world. I think the rw churches reacted to this by firmly closing themselves into the closets left empty by the rest of us.

was much different than your own.

We were not taught that our church had some kind of exclusive rights or that we should avoid contact with other groups. Quite the opposite, actually.