This thread needs some definitions. It’s like you’re all talking at each other instead of to each other.
I think rather than talking about Atheists, we should be looking at Irreligiousness in general. The Irreligious make up a significant and growing demographic.
Yes, I think you are.
Do you speak for any atheists? If so, on whose authority?
Others wonder too but because we are concerned about those bad outcomes instead of dismissing them out of hand or secretly favoring them.
I have seen the argument posited that as atheism is not a religion (it’s the absence of religion), atheists do not enjoy first amendment protections for their beliefs. As an atheist that concerns me.
I’m not sure I follow. In it’s broadest terms, it’s about freedom of speech and religion. If your freedom of speech is unaffected, and you don’t believe in a specific religion, how are you being affected? In the example you posted it talks about giving the invocation. I guess I don’t understand why a non-theist would want to speak words they don’t believe, invoking a power they know isn’t there.
I qualify as an atheist, but I don’t consider myself AN atheist - that sounds like being part a “religious” group of non-believers. I don’t like, trust, believe in religion over and above the thought of a supreme being.
I’d be happy the atheism is not considered a religion.
If atheism is not considered to be, let’s say, the equivalent of a religion for free exercise purposes–with fully equal rights and protections to religions–then something like Section 4 of Article 1 of the Texas State Constitution is not necessarily unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments:
But non-theistic beliefs are the equivalents of religions, for the purposes of free exercise jurisprudence, and so that clause of the Texas State Constitution (and similar clauses in the constitutions of several other states) are not enforceable (at least not legally enforceable; politically or socially enforceable is another matter, there being no way to control what voters do in the privacy of the voting booth).
I can be affected if, for instance, I’m fired from a job for espousing atheistic beliefs, or fired for not espousing religious beliefs. Yes, currently the law seems to forbid this, but with nutters like Barret on the court I have no confidence the status quo will hold.
I agree with you. And I’m no fan of Amy Coney Barret.
However, she is not a fundamentalist, or even a near-fundamentalist.
May I make a suggestion that we stop calling the anti-abortion faction “pro-life?”
More descriptive terms would be “anti-abortion” or “anti-choice.” Calling them “pro-life” pretty much defines the opposing position exactly the way they would like. If these individuals were truly “pro-life” they would support other forms of birth control, wage parity for working women, subsidies for child care, and more support for poor single mothers. Unfortunately their platform is usually against all of these measures.
If atheism is a religion, then silence is a musical genre.
Oh, crap-Now someone is going to link to that damn “John Cage’s 4’33”.
You’re the fourth or fifth person to misspell the Justice’s name in this thread. Is it deliberate?
Regarding abortion vis a vis atheism - I do not want any member of the scotus predicating their decisions on their personal religious belief. In this instance, the case may be about abortion, in the next it may be about access to birth control. This is a “camel’s nose in the tent” issue. Any scotus decision predicated on religious belief (yes, ANY) erodes the rights of atheists, and other out religions.
Maybe you should talk to the OP.
No, it’s not. Thanks so much for pointing out my misspelling.
In any case, who cares? It’s just an attempt to demonize and distract from the thread topic.
We do exist, you know. I’ll grant you that there aren’t nearly enough of us.
But as has been pointed out, none of these things “make life harder” for atheists because of their atheism. They may affect, 1) people who desire abortions, 2) LGBTQ persons, and 3) people who don’t like the First Amendment as written, but they do not affect atheists by virtue of being an atheist. Where is the connection between atheism and these issues?
Sure, the local Elks Club might pass a resolution saying that they are pro-life, but if a bill is passed allowing third trimester abortions that doesn’t “make life harder” on the Elks Club.
All of the examples in this thread are substituting “liberal” for “atheist.”