23. Comment #462193 by decius on February 19, 2010 at 8:47 pm

...for our initiatives and policies, we shouldn't be relying on people who happen to be critical of religion, but generally fail to act and think as rationalists when their sacred cows are challenged. We should stay especially clear of those who take positions antithetic to science and are impervious to evidence-based corrections, for we would be setting a double standard if we did.
Furthermore, they can't be trusted. If their favourite ideologue or quack revealed to them tomorrow that a giant invisible leprechaun is the creator of the universe, they would most likely do a U-turn.

I disagree completely.

In your opinion, which stands in stark contrast to the prevailing attitude of the RDF (if Bill Maher's smiling mug on the front page of the website is any indication), Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher have formed an Unholy Alliance.

Indeed they have, because wars are typically won with alliances.

Allies unite under a common cause, to achieve a common goal. Do allies need to see eye-to-eye on every issue, political or otherwise, to achieve their objectives? Of course not -- the proposition is highly impractical. It's a ridiculous notion, in fact. Effective alliances form between groups of people with differences all the time. It isn't even worth debating.

Bill Maher has undoubtedly contributed heavily to the RDF, and his very public atheism (i.e. Religulous) has raised awareness worldwide. Perhaps, Decius, when you are elected to the RDF board of directors, you can suggest alternatives to Bill Maher's award-winning role and participation in the plans of the RDF. You are also welcome to find innovative ways to pay the bills after you reject and return Maher's money, due to your personal crisis in conscience.