Musicat and I were calmly discussing the pros and cons of being atheist, when s/he made the statement
Neverminding that, as I pointed out, atheists can vote, congregate, hold public office, get married, and do any number of things that, in fact, is their right to, Musicat seems to be fixated on the one “weak spot,” holding public office, creating a thread to “prove it” after s/he challenged me to name one atheist official and I named three.
Now, thread history aside: Are atheists “second-class citizens” (that is, denied the basic rights afforded to “first class citizens,” which s/he defines as “blacks and gays” for some reason)? Are atheists unworthy of being called AMERICANS? Is there an organized conspiracy to deny fundamental rights to atheists? Do you vote only for people in your religious class?
Sheesh why don’t you two just pit each other or keep to one thread?
I don’t think we’re second class citizens I do think we are a misunderstood minority that has to put up with some unwarranted harassment though. How can you not feel a little annoyed when in a causal conversation you mention you’re an atheist and have someone jump down your throat with something as stupid as “You may have come from a monkey but I didn’t”. Then after you explain what atheism is. How it isn’t the same as a belief in evolution. How no you’re not interested in believing ‘just in case’ finally getting tired of it and pointing out the flaws with their belief system and then YOU’RE the fanatical jerk and watching everything they just did to you (being intolerant, arrogant, and obtrusive) projected onto your side while they play the victim is just plain annoying. It’s no surprise many atheists feel under siege or second class.
There’s even a story that George Bush the original said atheists shouldn’t even be considered citizens of the USA.
I thought his/her thread was a little off of the topic we were originally debating, so I decided to return to the basics.
I think you’re on target, Dark. I wouldn’t go out on a limb and say atheists are afforded equal judgement by all religious folk, but on the other hand, not all religious folk are accorded equal status by atheists. I think it has more to do with the person - if you are an asshole as a theist, you would be an asshole as an atheist, and vice versa.
I certainly don’t see the point in comparing atheists to the civil rights movement, or even the less charged and more recent gay rights movement. I would put atheists on the same level as pretty much every other minority religion in the US. Maybe if we band together we can get someone elected.
On the other hand, I don’t believe the argument that most Americans vote along religious lines. I think most Americans don’t really care and vote for issues, but most politicians proclaim their Christian status to make sure. shrugs Not an incredibly big deal, so long as religion is kept out of school etc - though it would be nice seeing the PoA, money, and political session prayers get the axe.
Maybe the biggest issue is abortion, but there are plenty of politicians that are pro-choice, so I don’t see it as so much of a religious division. shrugs
Not from a small town I take it? My ex girlfriend was from the south and she couldn’t conceive of voting for a non-Baptist (we didn’t have any Baptists seeking office) Many of my family vote along Catholic lines.
Think about it even if only the fundamentalists care about your religion they’ll draw enough moderates in with scare tactics like “they are going to take god away from our children” or implications that since someone is atheist they have no common moral ground with believers. You’d only make enemies and no allies.
While putting on an image of deep believer will win you allies and few enemies. The only places I see criticizing Bush for his ‘faith’ are atheist websites. Heck even if faith based initiatives went through with barely a ripple.
True enough. I’ve never experienced the like out here in the west, aside from Utah. I do agree with the “make enemies and no allies” bit - that is very true, and a major reason most politicians proclaim their theism; though the credibility of most of them as theists is laughable.
You must not browse the same websites that I do, but also partly true.
There are real problems in being a minority - but it doesn’t mean that you are a second class citizen, which is the point. Now, the second someone says you can’t get married or vote because you don’t accept Jesus, let all hell break out.
Right on! I often feel the same way. Sure Atheists are entitled to all the freedoms of any american citizen, but Prejudice is alive and well.
The type of encroachment I think being addressed here is the display of the Ten Commandments in Public School lawns, the attempts to get Intelligent Design added to Classroom criteria, and the BassAckwards attempt a few years ago in Ohio to mandate religious counseling for couples considering a divorce.
I’m a pagan and I get the feeling people think it’s just a phase I’m going through, therefore they feel it’s not necessary to take me seriously when I stand up for my rights.
Ditto. Neopaganism is generally looked down upon, even by atheists. Very few understand what it generally entails. And granted, it is a “stage” for many people, but so is pretty much everything else.
So yea, I’m used to being a minority on several levels, and yea, it sucks sometimes, but you have to make do with what is available and have faith (pun intended) that enough fellow citizens care about your rights, even if they don’t believe like you.
Anyway, trust me, those psycho Christian things going through scare more than just atheists.
I suppose one question you can ask here is if relative representation is a right. I don’t think it necessarily is. That’s one of the unfortunate problems of a democratic voting system, but if you want to make another proposal for elections that would be equal to the population percentages, I’m all ears. Don’t think it is likely, though. I feel for you if you live in the deep south, honestly.
There is still widespread resistance to the idea of voting for an atheist, regardless of the candidate’s stance on the issues. This American Atheists article discusses a 1999 Gallup poll which found that 48% of those polled would not vote for an atheist for President, while only 49% would. Note that respondants were being asked if they would vote for a “generally well qualified person for president” who happened to be a ________. If the blank is filled in with “Jewish”, the number saying yes goes up to 92%. Similarly low percentages of people would decline to vote even for a “generally well qualified person” for President if that person happened to be a Baptist or a Catholic. 79% would consider voting for a Mormon for President, while only 17% would reject all Mormons based on their religious affiliation. Atheists score even lower than gays, as only 37% of respondents replied they would refuse to vote for a homosexual for President based on the fact of sexual orientation only, while 59% would at least consider voting for a homosexual for President.
I would also be interested to know if there are any U.S. Representatives or Senators who are open atheists. From what I can find about the religious affiliations of members of the U.S. Congress, there are some in the “no religion specified” category, but none who are openly atheistic. (Religious affiliations are routinely reported for members of Congress, and politicians at all levels routinely include church memberships or other religious affiliations in campaign literature.) For the purposes of this discussion, I would accept self-identifications of “atheist”, “agnostic”, “freethinker”, “secular humanist”, or other similar terms.
Are atheists “second-class citizens”? “Second-class citizen” is both emotionally loaded and imprecise. There is certainly still a widespread prejudice against atheists in political life in the United States.
Don’t shoot the messenger - an atheist came up with the classification.
Thanks for the statistics, they are fairly enlightening. I’m actually surprised at the percentage who would refuse to vote in a homosexual as President, given the higher percentage polled who refuse to let them even be legally married. It would be interesting to see a more recent pole on that specific issue.
To quote Keynes, “When I get new information, I change my position. What, sir, do you do with new information?”
Maybe I’m just spoiled living in California. We don’t seem to care who is what as long as they are an actor. O_o
There doesn’t seem to be any independent verification that Bush Sr. ever said this. None of the other reporters present remember it, and there doesn’t seem to be any contemporaneous corroboration.
That list is about as accurate as a Patriot missile. O_o
Seriously? Atheists can’t find a place to get married? There are no atheist book stores? There are no atheist meeting centers? No one doesn’t thank god when saved? People being sworn in have to swear on a Bible? You can’t wear a pentagram (I’m wearing one right now, but I don’t see what a pentagram has to do with atheism anyway, since it is a serious religious symbol, thanks much for mocking it)?
Some of these are actually true, which is bad for satire.
“You can’t drive anywhere without seeing a Darwin fish or a “Jesus Was A Fraud” bumper sticker stuck to a car.”
“College campuses usually have dozens of atheist organizations”
“Sci-fi movies almost always make rational scientific types into “good guys” while emotional, irrational people become the “heavies”.”
Atheists make lists like this, call themselves second class citizens, and then wonder why anyone dares to find them arrogant? Pious atheism is just as annoying as pious Christianity.
While I agree that the incident in question isn’t a certainty, I don’t agree with your reasoning. First, infidels.org cites independent sources that have referred to the event:
They aren’t precisely contemporaneous, but then it’s not exactly the kind of thing that would have run in the New York Times the next day.
As for the point that other reporters didn’t confirm it (and I hear this a lot), I can’t recall any other event where such confirmation was ever asked for. Sherman was a fully accredited reporter. If Tom Brokaw recounted a conversation he had while attending a press conference, I somehow doubt that people would be checking to see if anyone else heard it. The way it works is, reporters go to press conferences, ask questions, and take notes. They aren’t generally expected to have to prove that they aren’t lying.
So while I think you’re correct that there is scant corroborating evidence for the event, I don’t think that necessarily disproves it.
Oops, forgot my other point. You can’t really state a universal negative like, “none of the other reporters present remember it”, unless you tracked down and contacted every reporter who was there that day.
Bush Sr. saying something like that in an election season would be news fodder. Not even Bush Jr would leap up and say that atheists are terrorists at the height of his popularity.
This doesn’t prove that he said it- it just proves that the various atheist organizations are angry that they heard he said it. Organizations get upset over rumors all the time.
Keep in mind that this was also an election season where “Bush didn’t know what an electric register was,” which was widely reported. It doesn’t make sense that those same reporters would keep some strange conspiracy of silence against atheists.
I assume s/he meant that some people don’t feel atheists should have rights, hence his/her standing up for atheists’ rights.
I think having very, very few atheists in public office is not some minor “weak spot” that you seem to belittle. Also, you might find this interesting.
