​https://medium.com/humanist-voices/if-youth-knew-if-age-could-3-coming-of-age-in-an-ever-ever-irrational-world-31a33d9c749f
 
Technology is our present and future, and young people need to embrace it. Being tech-savvy in the workplace is becoming a necessity for job seekers. Schools need to educate students for this reality so they will be able to transition into the work world. Workers presently employed need to be able to master new technology, expect frequent updates and changes to software, and learn how to stay on top of those advances. For most of human history, technological improvements were achieved by chance, trial and error, or inspiration. The modern scientific enterprise matured in the Enlightenment and concerned itself primarily with fundamental questions of nature. Research and development directed toward immediate technical application arose with the Industrial Revolution and became  commonplace in the twentieth century. Science deals with theories, principals, and laws, while technology deals with products, processes, and designs. Science has helped us gain some knowledge of the universe and make accurate predictions on future outcomes. Technology, on the other hand, has helped to simplify our work by providing us with products that help get better results in less time.

​https://medium.com/humanist-voices/if-youth-knew-if-age-could-2-freethought-for-a-multipolar-world-b48183a9430a
 
You mentioned BRIC, which is an acronym for the developing nations of Brazil, Russia, India, and China—countries that many believe will become the dominant suppliers of manufactured goods, services, and raw materials by 2050. In 2010, South Africa joined the group, making it BRICS. They then became a political organization, embracing global capitalism and cooperation among its members, hoping to influence the United States on trade policies. So what, if anything, does BRICS have to do with freethought? Countries that influence the economies in other parts of the world also tend to influence cultures there, which may include religious beliefs. 
 

​It’s not easy to choose just one person to feature as a prime example of international vision and human values, when so many come to mind. I thought about choosing Abraham Lincoln, who was responsible for ending slavery in the United States. However, he did not always have humanistic views of black people. During the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, Lincoln said, “I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.” He added that he viewed the white race as superior to the black race.Lincoln did not differ from most white males in the North and South at the time. Even though he was an abolitionist, and despite his many other good qualities, Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist. 
 

​https://www.newsintervention.com/silverman-jacobsen-15/
 
You mention famous American freethought individuals, some of whom might be acerbic, sardonic, read by ordinary Americans, philosophers, popularizers of science, or debunkers of irrationalism. I think all such people are useful to a freethought movement because they often represent different constituencies. I’m a “big tent” atheist who welcomes all to come out of their atheist closets to help normalize freethought in America. I’ll describe my personal journey to atheism with four examples. As a youngster, I was influenced by the movie The Wizard of Oz, where the gatekeeper told Dorothy that nobody had ever seen the great Wizard. Dorothy replied, “Then how do you know he exists?” The curtain is later pulled back to reveal that the “Wizard” is an elderly man operating machinery and speaking into a microphone. So the Wizard didn’t exist, and Dorothy was on her own. That sounded to me a lot like what I was beginning to think of God. I was also influenced by the Bible. I “knew” as a trusting child that the Bible was God’s word. But after many of my biblical questions went unanswered, I became an example of what Isaac Asimov observed, “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”
 

​https://www.newsintervention.com/silverman-jacobsen-14/
The framers of the United States Constitution wanted no part of the religious intolerance, holy wars, and bloodshed they saw in Europe. In declaring independence from England, Americans also rejected the claim by kings, crowned by bishops, that they had been vested with a God-given authority to rule through “divine right.” The U.S. framers wisely established the first government in history to separate religion and government. They formed a secular nation whose authority rests with "We the People" (the first three words of the U.S. Constitution) and not with "Thou the Deity." They created a Constitution in which the government acknowledged no gods, the better to ensure freedom of conscience. We the people are free to worship one, many, or no gods. As Thomas Jefferson said, “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
 

https://www.newsintervention.com/philosophical-and-historical-foundations-of-american-secularism-13-everyday-bigotry-and-prejudice-the-freethinkers-beneath-the-spokespersons-between-the-headlines-and-below-equal-human-status/
You ask how we can talk to Christian fundamentalists when their worldview is so different from ours and they don’t accept evidence. I’ve found that we can’t reason people out of a belief that they didn’t come to through reason, but we still might be able to find some points of agreement. For instance, I might start with “Love your neighbor,” and point out varieties of the Golden Rule from Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and Confucianism that predate Jesus. Another thing we could probably agree on is that all other faiths are wrong. I do say that every educated person should read the Bible, because it’s an important part of our culture. I also mention some secular books worth reading. If I’m asked for biblical quotes I like, I can mention Matthew 7:16: “By your fruits you shall know them.” I also like John 8:32: “The truth will set you free,” which it did when I became an atheist. If they tell me that they support blasphemy laws, I say I might, too, if the offended deity personally files charges.  

​https://www.newsintervention.com/silverman-jacobsen-12/
 
Thank you for saying I have a secure place in American freethinker history. If true, it would be because I did two things. First, I ran for Governor of South Carolina in 1990 to challenge the state constitution prohibition against atheists holding public office. I didn’t become governor, of course, but in 1997 the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled unanimously in my favor, nullifying the anti-atheist clause in the South Carolina Constitution. Credit for my Supreme Court victory belongs to my ACLU lawyers. I was just having fun giving campaign talks and writing about my experiences. Second, during my legal battle, I learned about and joined several national atheist and humanist organizations that all promoted causes I supported, like separation of religion and government and increasing visibility of and respect for freethinkers. However, each organization was doing its own thing without recognizing or cooperating with worthwhile efforts of like-minded groups. I thought that these diverse organizations would accomplish more by showing strength in numbers and working together on those issues to bring about cultural and political change. So in 2002, I helped form the Secular Coalition for America and became its founding president. 

​https://www.newsintervention.com/silverman-jacobsen-11/
You refer to America as a plutocratic polyarchy at its founding. Let’s first define our terms.
A “plutocracy” is a government ruled or controlled by people of great wealth and income, while “polyarchy” means “rule by many,” and is a government ruled by more than one person (in your case, people of great wealth). A polyarchy may or may not be a democracy. A democracy is a government by all the citizenry who choose their leaders by voting for them in elections.The founding fathers chose not to have a democracy. Some favored a democratic popular vote for the president while others argued that Congress should pick the president. Their compromise is known as the Electoral College, a small number of people selected by the masses to vote for president because the founders did not trust the population at large to make the right choice. In modern practice, the Electoral College is a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that selected them, and wind up voting for that party. The Electoral College was also part of a compromise to satisfy small states. Each state had at least as many electoral votes as they had representative in Congress, which means that no state could have less than three votes. In a small state like Wyoming, each elector represents 70,000 votes, while in California each elector represents 179,000 votes.
 

https://www.newsintervention.com/philosophical-and-historical-foundations-of-american-secularism-8-minority-religions-and-the-american-nation-state/
Religious freedom, guaranteed by the United States Constitution, allows individuals to practice and promote any religion or no religion without government interference. Our founders supported freedom of religion because they understood that such religious diversity would help our new country avoid the kinds of wars that had plagued Europe, where hundreds of thousands of people had been tortured and killed over religious differences. I view the existence of many minority religions as a “blessing.” Christians are wrong when they claim America is a Christian nation. It’s a Christian nation in the same way that America is a white nation. The majority of Americans are both white and Christian. However, America is not now, nor has it ever officially been, a white nation or a Christian nation.