honest sex education would include mentioning the realities of the full menstrual cycle in women (including that it is rather more than just a few days of bleeding and cramps) rather than just discussing proper condom use.

Even the burden of contraception falls harder on women than on men. Ask any college student you know what she’s paying for the pill since the last Republican Congress removed the incentive for pharmaceutical companies to supply college clinics w contraceptives at low cost—about $30+ a month whether she’s having it on or not, plus one mandatory doctor’s visit and pap per year $75. Then ask her if her boyfriend subsidizes any of this. Not likely. Then calculate the cost of a box of rubbers and no mandatory doctor expense. And if you skip the contraceptives, well it’s back to the choice: abortion or pregnancy, both emotionally and financially costly and fraught with demeaning and terrifying moments, with the whole world your judge. It’s a man’s world, friends, and that’s why gay rights had to leapfrog reproductive freedom.

If you want to try and read all of my comment, you will note that I specifically mention that some atheists might think MLK was an exception to the general bad influence of religion on politics. The claim by Walt @40 was that no liberals were bothered by the fact that MLK was a minister. I was simply trying to point out that a few atheists, such as Christopher Hitchins were, and that this was logically consistent with his view that nothing good could ever come out of religious belief. I don’t think that is a widespread view among atheists (although I presume many think that more evil than good comes out of religion), but it is a view that exists.

Bullshit. This liberal atheist doesn’t care what rational a person gives for doing what is right in the face of opposition. MLK could have given credit to the Tooth Fairy but it wouldn’t have changed his actions any. He did right. That he was a preacher was immaterial to the cause, as hundreds of other civil rights leaders were secular and did as much good as MLK did. Considering how many other preachers opposed him, he stands out as the exception that proves the rule and shows what a person can do in spite of his religion.

My opposition to religion in politics still stands though, because for every MLK, there are a dozen Dobsons and Falwells.

As I was trying to say, if you are an atheist liberal who believes that religion is wholly bad and should have no influence in politics, MLK is a serious problem for your position.

As I was trying to say, if you are an atheist liberal who believes that religion is wholy bad and should have no influence in politics, MLK is a serious problem for your position. If you are an atheist liberal who is prepared to admit that religion can sometimes or occasionally have a useful influence in politics, he’s not a problem, just an exception to the general rule. (It’s equally a problem for those who believe that religion is always a positive influence in politics to explain away Ian Paisley or the Dutch reform church in apartheid South Africa etc, etc).

I have long ago stopped reading Christopher Hitchins (and I don’t know if he still counts as a liberal) but doesn’t he play down King’s religious side?

There is a small subset within liberal atheists who are bothered by MLK being a minister because it goes against their belief that religion is always a regressive force and should always be kept out of politics. I have long ago stopped reading Christopher Hitchins (and I don’t know if he still counts as a liberal) but doesn’t he play down King’s religious side?

Plus, I was around and a devout Protestant in the 70s, and your description of the history is completely wrong. It happened almost exactly as Maynard described.

Not really. The majority of black churches were never supporters of the civil rights movment, and according to Taylor Branch, much of the clergy was actively hostile.