Of course.
Am I allowed to nominate myself?
This is wrong on at least three levels.
Firstly, you seem to be implying that your rights are somehow infringed by being forced to take out certain cover that contains an exception. If the exception didn’t exist your rights would be less not more - you would be forced to pay for a higher level of cover which would increase your premium.
Secondly, as I’m sure you know, “act of God” is simply legal shorthand for random acts not caused or reasonably preventable by human intervention. That this form of words is used doesn’t affect you. If another form of words was used for the same thing, you would be no better or worse off.
Thirdly, whether you get auto insurance that covers Acts of God is in your control. You can pay for it or not. There are simply different levels of cover. If a different wording was used, the same situation would exist.
To the extent that this is a thing that happened at all, I suspect it was opposition from a group like the Freedom From Religion Foundation (which frequently airs TV ads where its spokesperson, Ron Reagan, professes that he is a “life-long atheist, not afraid of burning in hell”), which does advocacy against things like religious exemptions to neutral laws and regulations. That’s not necessarily atheists thinking that life will be harder for them so much as it is a political advocacy organization thinking that the new justice would be bad for their issues generally, which is a perfectly normal thing to have happen during a Supreme Court nomination process. There were likely hundreds of issue-oriented groups that did the same thing, pro or con.
I really dislike perspectives like those voiced by the OP. It’s like who I am as an atheist is somehow divorced from who I am as a person. While this is a common western way of thinking (trying to boil someone, or a group, down to its platonic ideal), it is a fundamental fallacy.
I am a white male scientist, so have little to fear from people like Barret (especially given I no longer live in the states, but that is beside my point) for my OWN safety. However, I do not live my whole life solely focused on my own safety, but I care far more about the safety of those close to me, the majority of which do not share my privilege. This type of viewpoint seems to be entirely missed by those on the right.
I am not an atheist just because it is good for me, but also because it is good for those around me. Therefore, since Barret threatens those I care about, atheism is the least of my concern.
No, it’s not “wrong” on any “level”, it’s just out of conformity with such a wishy-washy meaning of the word “God”. But what the hell, it’s only a legal contract.
That’s what I was trying to get at way up above. Well said.
You are most likely the closest to fully answering. Among the many organizations that expressed reservation to the appointment, there would be those concerned about rulings inserting religious justifications into the judicial decision making on a variety of issues, naturally including some who already advocate actively for a strict SOCAS principle.
That is not the same thing as " the atheists".
As to the matter of whether there are cases pending or presented, it is a known position from various interests on the Right that they’re waiting to be sure of a favorable majority to go after some particular legal ruling - guns, abortion, ACA, for instance - to try and raise a case. But those would have been concerns with ANY justice that could be appointed at that point.
The second and third sentences of this quote absolutely do not follow from the first, and are not even remotely true.
My spelling the former “first lady’s” name Melanoma was obviously deliberate. Why would you think shorting ACB a “t” in any way would be a slight?
Wishy washy what way?
Last I checked – no matter how out of keeping the term maybe with modern secular thought – the simple fact is that it is one of the oldest used and best understood legal phrases going. But if you can tell me where it’s causing confusion in the way that some other term might not, feel free to do so.
You also haven’t addressed the other two points concerning the availability of cover with and without this exception and why your post isn’t wrong in those respects.
I’ve only been practising insurance law for 30 years so go easy on me but if you want to get technical, I’ll see if I can understand.
@RitterSport I don’t remember exactly where I first heard that atheists were upset at RBG’s passing. I could do a search. But I assume it was all over the place.
Also, I noticed some people on these boards were pretty upset. I was even watching one thread. I guess some of the people there might’ve been gay and whatnot. But I noticed most of them didn’t specify what the cause of their worry was. 
In summation the premise of the thread was basically “what concerns would atheists have with ACB on the bench?”
The only material answers I’ve seen given fall into two categories:
- Issues that already exist and have existed for decades under previous courts/jurists
- Fanciful scenarios for which there is little direct evidence of them coming to any impending realization anytime soon, if ever
Yeah, that’s what I thought. Well, I think your OP is not well-founded. I’m sure lots of atheists were pissed at ACB’s selection, but not necessarily because they were atheists. Maybe they were pro-choice, or pro-LGBTQ-rights, or just liberals, or just anti-Trump, or whatever.
I just thought it odd that so many people made the same spelling error in a relatively short thread, that’s all. It wasn’t an accusation, and it wasn’t to meant to be directed at any specific poster(s). I just picked the most recent to quote.
modnote: And on that note, lets drop this minor sidebar and get back to whatever this thread is actually about.
Nobody is saying that a person’s atheism is the entire person. People belong to groups that don’t define their entire personality. Do you object to any questions about what women or college grads or blacks or gun owners or abortion rights supporters think about a certain thing?
Then I assume that examples should be extremely easy to find.
FWIW, here is the American Atheists statement on her appointment. I think they bring up a lot points already made in this thread. 
See post #5.
Sorry, when open up a thread, my smartphone just takes me to the latest posts. I don’t see the earlier ones.
So what’s the problem then? Someone already cited an example.
In the meantime, I have to remember where I saw that news story. I seem to recall seeing it recently. But I don’t remember where. As I said, I did see a lot of distress just here on these boards.