Activists = Atheists... why?

Today I received the bi-weekly update for the Madison Activists Calender in my email. I usually enjoy getting this because it gives me the opportunity to see what kind of political and activist events are going on in Madison that I wouldn't normally know about. It's also cool to hear what the Madison-Rafah group is doing (the controversial group that is trying to make Rafah, the one with the Qassams, Madison's sister city) and what kind of anti-Israel stuff they are promoting. This week they are sponsoring the Madison leg of the play My Name is Rachel Corrie.
But today the calender really offended me. On the list of activist events on campus for the week was Richard Dawkins' lecture on his book The G-d Delusion. Now, don't get me wrong, I have a ticket for the lecture and I plan on going because I really enjoy getting pissed off, but what does a lecture supporting atheism have anything to do with activism?
I quickly sent the editor of the calender an email back with an ad absurdum argument, trying to "understand where he was coming from" in a slightly sarcastic way.

What does [a pro-atheism lecture] have to do with activism? Are you implying that a religiously observant activist is an oxymoron? I should hope not because that would be a very close-minded approach to society at large.
And if that is not what you were implying, then why would you put an event that has to do with religion (or lack thereof) on your calender? How is that any different then posting a lecture about the positive aspects of religion or even a scholarly or critical lecture on religion given at the university? Obviously, events like that are not the type of events you are trying to promote by sending out the calender.
And if you mentioned Richard Dawkins' lecture because you thought that many people who are activists would also be interested in the lecture (which is true and I plan on attending that lecture) then it is not an activist calender anymore - it is an events calender for things that are going on in Madison with an emphasis on activism. And that doesn't seem right to me. Stick with what you know.

Yeah the last sentence was a little harsh but it was only because I didn't have a great argument for why his calender should stay an activist-events-only calender. That's really his decision.
But it just seems like such a double standard to me. When it comes to secular liberalism, you can be gay, you can (or should) be vegan, you can be a feminist, you can be any race or ethnicity, but you can't be religious because all religious people are uneducated and blind and addicted to the opiate of the masses. But it is really them who are blind to their own contradictions and hypocrisies. It's for the same reason (I believe) that the Emma Goldman Co-op didn't accept me. Their three pillars were anarchism, feminism, and anti-racism, which I hold very closely (well, maybe not so much the anarchism part), but when I asked the coordinator why I wasn't accepted, she said, "You seem like a great individual, but Emma Goldman has a certain image that it needs to uphold." Read - we don't want anyone religious here because it might make us look less liberal. That's bullshit. Liberalism is all about changing the status quo to make a more ideal society, but when they refuse to include religious people in their fights for social justice and peace, they neglect their own values.
This is why organizations like Uri Li'Tzedek and Rabbis for Human Rights are so important right now. It is true that for some reason the religious tend to ignore the social justice aspects of their communities and I really have no idea why that is, but it gives a bad name for us. Organizations like that not only help the communities around them, but they help repair the image of religious people being apathetic to the world around them in ways that are not directly tied to religiosity.
The problem is that even though it is true that the Orthodox need to work harder on the words of G-d Himself, "צדק, צדק תרדף - Justice, justice you shall pursue," it is not something that should be accepted by the secular liberals. Racism still exists, but they fight that. Chauvinism still exists, and that is being fought too. But religionism (I just made that word up) is not only not being fought, it is being propagated, and that is wrong.

Update: Turns out I overreacted. Here's the email John sent back to me:

Hello Eric,
I'm sorry you found the calendar listing of Prof. Dawkins lecture "offensive." I must admit, that when I first opened your email I thought it was another pro-Israeli person calling me "anti-semitic" for including Palestinian solidarity events! As you can imagine, I get lots of those, along with other assorted unpleasantries.

Actually, I try to include most every UW Distinguished Lectures in the calendar precisely because they are often controversial speakers. Personally, I've found other UW Distinguished lectures much more "offensive", such as David Horowitz, but I've included them nonetheless since it is good for folks to hear another side if they wish.

Obviously, I do not endorse the politics of everything I include in the calendar. The listing is for informational purposes only.

Best - John

I sent him an email back apologizing for becoming emotional. So I was wrong this time, but I still believe in what I wrote, even though John might be an exception. Let's hope that in fact more people are like John who do not hold a double standard.