Visaki said:One thing that came into mind when I was reading this though was about the movement thing and how it can't represent all atheists. Think of the civil rights movement in the US in the 50s and 60s. They were a very diverse group with very diverse opinions on everything else but they agreed that blacks should have the same rights as whites. They were able to make a movement on the things they agreed on and strive for that goal, ignoring the other things the disagreed on to work for a better society. Now atheists are not exactly the same as atheism isn't a social goal like civil rights is, but I do think that pretty much all atheists do agree with a few points, like that atheists shouldn't be vilified or discriminated against and that religion should not have official power in a society. The question is can /should we ignore the other points and gather as a movement for those things we do almost universally agree on?
I would say not under the banner of atheism as all it represents is a term for what one doesn't believe in.
Instead, in accordance with what you've written, the civil rights movement was about something people believed in and could join together with like-minded people; as such, secularism is a positive principle that can provide a platform for such a movement.
A few years back I was part of a group involved in staving off the encroachment of Creationist fucktardery in the National Trust's site exhibit. The group was comprised of just as many Christians as non-religious. Whether the non-religious like it or not, the religious dramatically out-weigh them in terms of numbers and any democratic pursuit is only going to succeed by inclusion, not exclusive in-group tribalism. I can't imagine there's very many even moderate religionists who would attend an atheism convention, but there'd be plenty who'd feel passionate about secularism - they have a dog in that race.