This is very interesting and telltale: Freedom From Religion Foundation statement before her appointment.
They seem to make some good points. What do mean by “telltale”?
I mean by ‘telltale’, they show the main source of their anxiety over her.
What do you think of the points they made?
I think they are valid. It’s getting late and I have errands to run. Any further questions you ask I will have to answer later.
Often, yes, I do. None of those groups are monoliths who all think the same thing about much of anything.
If the question’s phrased as a statistical or similar comparison – ‘in this study x percent of y group think that RBG was a far better justice than Barrett will be’ – that can be fair. But ‘what do women think of Barrett’ isn’t really a sensible question.
Yes, yes I do object!
How can you not? College grads, blacks, gun owners, and abortion rights supporters are VERY diverse groups of people that, other then this item have NOTHING in general in common!
How the hell can you ask “what do black people (in general) think on a particular topic?” It is an utterly ludicrous question (that easily comes across as racist), as it implies that Black people have some sort of hive mind that the majority think alike, or the majority is so simple they can’t come to their own opinions independently of their skin color.
I suspect you misunderstand my point. I’m NOT assuming that anyone is saying that someone is entirely defined by atheism, I’m pointing out that this question tries to distill people into athiest and “non-athiest components” (which is similar, but not the same).
E.G., if I say “I am for abortion because restricting it hurts the people I care about, but I’d believe this if I were an athiest or a Christian”, this response would be rejected because it isn’t specifically addressing the OP’s question of how it makes life harder for athiests SPECIFICALLY. I’m arguing that this distinction is a total mischaracterization of how people work, therefore is not a legitimate question.
EDIT: oops, I see someone answered for me above!
What you seem to miss is that there is a huge overlap between atheists and those who are pro-choice, and a large overlap in those who are or support LGBT people. And do note that preventing women from getting abortions affects the father as well, and can affect whole families.
For both of these, the opposition is primarily religious in nature. Opposition to LGBT people is pretty much all based on religion. And the idea that abortion should be illegal is generally predicated on religious principles. Even pro-life atheists make the same arguments that the religious do, which fall back on an idea of what some moral arbiter said rather than looking at the situation in a secular fashion, looking at scientific aspects or cultural impact or sociology.
As for the last one, the only people described in this thread who misconstrue the first amendment would be those who oppose the separation of church and state. That affects atheists directly. Passing laws that allow discrimination by religion mean that religion can be forced on atheists. And of course putting Christianity into law (as Dominionists generally want to do) forces religion on atheists.
Barret was part of a type of Christianity that usually is Dominionist in nature. I know–I grew up in a denomination that’s slightly less extreme, and they push Dominionist concepts all the time, seeing the ACLU as their enemy. Unless she has disavowed all those beliefs, and shown them not to affect her anymore, I do 100% understand why atheists would be concerned.
The underlying issue is the idea that Barrett’s religion is the type that would try to enforce its own beliefs into law. That can potentially abortion rights, LGBT rights, birth control, and freedom of religion.
All of those are things that affect atheists. Atheist include women, men, LGBT people, and those who need access to birth control. And, not being the majority, they depend on freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.
But that’s not what he’s asking. Asking eg why gun owners are worried about the appointment of a pro-gun control judge, or why black people are worried about the appointment of a judge known to oppose AA would be perfectly reasonable questions, even though not all the people in those groups are actually worried.
The difference, in my mind, is that a gun owner (and other similar groupings) is (partially) defined by something they are or have, whereas atheists are defined by something they lack belief in. It’s like asking, “what to people who don’t collect stamps think?” The only thing that atheists have in common is a lack of belief in God or gods.
A more reasonable request would be, what does the Satanic Temple think about this, or others who fight for freedom from religion. The Satanic Temple is an organization that actively fights for freedom from religion, similar to the Freedom From Religion group. The Satanic Temple are atheists, but they ALSO express views on religious freedom.
Run-of-the-mill atheists who happen to be liberals may object to this or that, just like theists who happen to be liberals. Atheists who happen to be conservatives may have other priorities, and so on.
So, OP, what do you think non-stamp-collectors think about her appointment? What about people who aren’t interested in NASCAR? How about people who don’t have HBO?
I disagree. Like I said, it’s not about what a group of people think on a given issue, it’s whether they have some shared interests that might be affected. And that does not depend on whether the group is defined negatively or positively. For example, non-Christians might all have reason to worry if Dominionists got into power. People who don’t have government ID have reason to worry about voter ID laws. Non-smokers might be worried if the government proposed to allow smoking indoors again.
Then, it makes more sense to group atheists with other non-Christians, right? But, the question here isn’t, what do non-Christians have to worry about ACB.
Atheism is just not enough of an attribute to make any other assumptions about someone. All people lack belief in nearly all gods ever conceived of, and atheists just go one further. That’s it, that’s all they have in common. They have as much in common as people who don’t go birdwatching have with each other.
They have as much in common as people who don’t smoke have with each other. Do you think it is unreasonable to ask what non-smokers think of laws banning smoking indoors?
Here’s an example of a law that might specifically affect atheists: Israel has no civil marriage. The only way to get legally married there is in a religious ceremony. I would expect atheists might have an opinion on this, wouldn’t you?
Justice Barrett is a Catholic, and Catholicism is not Dominionist, and specifically teaches and endorses the idea of religious freedom.
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
“An opinion”? No. Opinions? Sure.
I’m an atheist and have no plans to marry. I’d just ignore the law. Another atheist might fight against the law, collect signatures, support candidates, because they want to marry without religion being a part of the ceremony. Another atheist might say “meh, who cares”.
Anyone who doesn’t want to have a religious ceremony would have an opinion on this – a Jewish person marrying a Catholic person, for example.
ETA: Also what kayaker says. I was married in a religious ceremony even though I don’t have any belief in anything supernatural. Who cares what magic words some pastor wants to say? It has no effect on me.
ETA 2: My main point is that most atheists don’t care one way or the other, don’t think about religion much, are happy to go to church if that’s what their loved ones want to do, etc.
Sure, but not all gun owners will have an opinion on gun control, either. No group has a hive mind,
it has nothing to do with whether the group is defined by something they do or don’t do.
I have no idea if that is true of atheists in the USA. There has certainly been a lot of noise about atheism, though it’s become a lot less popular as a topic for conversation in the last 10 years.
Your position would make any distinction between groups nearly meaningless. There is overlap in positions on different issues among many groups. If a liberal judge were appointed and it was asked how gun owners would be affected and the response was that the judge would uphold Roe, you would rightfully scratch your head. If I pointed out that gun owners skewed conservative and thus many more were pro-life than an average sampling of society, then you would say what I am saying: although you may care about abortion, it has nothing at all to do with guns, and therefore nothing at all to do with the question asked.
The only one you touched on that is relevant is freedom of religion. So if you could point to something that you believe that Barrett would do to “make life harder” for an atheist with regards to freedom of religion then that would be on point. To say that having a legal abortion or expressing your sexuality with a same sex partner is an exercise in religion or a lack of exercising religion is odd at best. You might as well say that us posting on the SDMB is a lack of exercising religion.