them any equal footing. Therefore, quite likely being a bigot. Since there is no other convincing and compelling reasons why he would reject Jen's post. It's too bad though, he covers this up with flowery launguage instead of just telling us the real reason why he's posting about it. /sigh The core of scientific skepticism is that it is based on evidence and, to the degree possible, dispassionate analysis. It follows then, that it is by its nature no cognizant of privilege, gender, wealth or politics. lol. scientific skepticism is something people do, and people never exist outside of the kyriarchy. As a result, scientific skepticism as actually practiced in the real world absolutely is influenced and shaped by privilege, gender, wealth, or politics. Because the humans doing it are. I think you just don't. Atheism, skepticism, secularism, rationalism -- those opinions, viewpoints and ways of thinking are not movements, nor where they ever capable of becoming movements. The question anyone considering joining a movement should ask themselves is this: what do I need to accomplish? If the atheist's rejection of god is in part a reaction to political circumstance -eg an oppressive theocratic rgime the atheist has to live under-, then atheism can become political. It can also be the reaction to an oppressive socio-cultural environment. In this case however, the amalgamation of a new 'movement' that's never going to work, built on top of the smouldering ruins of the perceived 'old atheist movement', which has always been a