To explain - I have found that you cannot influence the position or state of general groups, because the people in them vary too much. But you can influence individuals within those groups.

 Which makes one wonder - what's the point of groupings then?

Groups are useful in some regards - they help identify national trends of prejudice, etc., that should be addressed. But in reading the blogs here I find that many bloggers tend to blur the line between groups and the people in them, assigning characteristics of a group to people who probably don't have all of them. Not all Christians are aggressively evangelistic, nor do they all think others are wrong based on their beliefs. Not all atheists deny the importance of a god figure, even if they don't believe in one themselves. This is more problematic with newer groups which are more loosely defined (atheism coming to mind here).  Making generalizations like this is like saying Americans are idiots. Statistically, the group identified as "Americans" are less successful in tests of intelligence than are those of other nationalities. But individual Americans are not encapsulated by this generalization.

Likewise, generalized statements on peoples' positions or beliefs cannot accurately be taken from their grouping. So please, less of the authority. Take it a person at the time.