I'm an atheist who is also an antitheist. This is fairly obvious to most people that know me well and talk to me about religion or gods or whatever superstition happens to be the flavor of the day. I treat religion with contempt, and I'm pretty smug about it as well. But I'm also a secularist, and secular goals are different than atheistic goals. Secular goals include LGBT rights, women's rights, and whether disaster money should be used to rebuild churches. They are also the place where atheists like myself can fight together with allies that may not have the same kinds of positions I do as an atheist about religion or gods but still support secularism and church/state separation.
I saw a blog post via Dan Fincke's twitter feed during the Star of David on the holocaust memorial argument that made a compelling case. In this post, the author makes the case that sustained and misguided litigation is actually creating bad precedent that sets back the secular movement instead of driving it forwards. I found the post compelling, and I think I only read it because it starts out with Douglas' case from Warren. I know Doug personally and I don't think he has or had malicious intentions, many atheists are just angry and want equal treatment/time immediately.
At any rate I found the post very informative and it changed the way I think about the secular community/atheist community and our legal goals and what they should be. I've always thought that to change politician's minds we need to change the population's minds. Similar to a "critical mass" of people like the LGBT have with them plus their allies. I've come to think that maybe this would apply to law and court cases as well. You can find the full post right here, I recommend reading it as it was very informative.