# Madison protects atheists
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
**Created:** [May 3, 2015, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157 "2015-05-03T16:51:55Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [May 3, 2015, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/1 "2015-05-03T16:51:55Z")
Madison, WI has done something that needed to be done (and they appear to be the first in the US to ever do this): [they have enacted a law that protects atheists and the non-religious from discrimination](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PROTECTING_ATHEISTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-03-11-04-45).
Good job, Madison; now let’s see how long it takes the rest of the country to catch up.
---
### Author:  [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)
#### Post date: [May 3, 2015, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/2 "2015-05-03T17:18:11Z")
Shouldn’t it be technically possible to wrap this all up in the same law that covers religious discrimination?
For example, if there was a law about discrimination on the basis of hairstyle, it could simply state ‘nobody shall be discriminated against because of the style and colour of their hair, _or because they have no hair_’
---
### Author:  [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)
#### Post date: [May 3, 2015, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/3 "2015-05-03T20:57:29Z")
From it’s reading it also seems to also protect another group, ‘spiritual but not religious’.
---
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [May 3, 2015, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/4 "2015-05-03T22:36:22Z")
> [@Mangetout](#):
>
> Shouldn’t it be technically possible to wrap this all up in the same law that covers religious discrimination?
>
> For example, if there was a law about discrimination on the basis of hairstyle, it could simply state ‘nobody shall be discriminated against because of the style and colour of their hair, _or because they have no hair_’
Many people seem to feel that the 1st Amendment’s protection of religion is just that: a protection for religious beliefs and practices. As such, there is some question as to whether or not it applies to people not practicing a religion. ISTM that the Madison city council wanted to remove any of those arguments and/or questions.
---
### Author:  [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)
#### Post date: [May 3, 2015, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/5 "2015-05-03T23:24:16Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#):
>
> Many people seem to feel that the 1st Amendment’s protection of religion is just that: a protection for religious beliefs and practices. As such, there is some question as to whether or not it applies to people not practicing a religion. ISTM that the Madison city council wanted to remove any of those arguments and/or questions.
Understood, I just think it would be best if it was all bundled in a single piece of legislation - then any future change affects all or none.
---
### Author:  [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2015, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/6 "2015-05-04T01:47:46Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#):
>
> Madison, WI has done something that needed to be done (and they appear to be the first in the US to ever do this): [they have enacted a law that protects atheists and the non-religious from discrimination](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PROTECTING_ATHEISTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-03-11-04-45).
>
> Good job, Madison; now let’s see how long it takes the rest of the country to catch up.
Madison is home to the [Freedom From Religion Foundation](https://ffrf.org/). It’s home to UW Madison, a capitol city and historically 70 square miles of sanity.
---
### Author:  [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2015, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/7 "2015-05-04T11:43:42Z")
Ironically, if we believe those who use the “well, it’s really a religion because you take things on faith too!” argument, then it _should_ be given 1st amendment protections, which is probably not what they want.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2015, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/8 "2015-05-04T12:45:11Z")
Oh goody - a law that doesn’t achieve anything or address any problem.
> [@](#):
>
> …the ordinance’s author, Anita Weier, said it didn’t arise from an actual complaint about alleged discrimination based on a lack of religious faith.
> …
>
> Zach Brandon, president of the Madison Chamber of Commerce, said he hasn’t heard city business owners express concern about the ordinance, but that’s likely because it “doesn’t really do anything.”
I graduated from UW- Madison. The actual quote is in the article - “77 square miles surrounded by reality”.
Next topic for the Madison City Council - employment discrimination against visitors from the planet Venus.
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2015, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/9 "2015-05-04T12:54:19Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Oh goody - a law that doesn’t achieve anything or address any problem.
> I graduated from UW- Madison. The actual quote is in the article - “77 square miles surrounded by reality”.
>
> Next topic for the Madison City Council - employment discrimination against visitors from the planet Venus.
And yet millions of people carry car insurance and have yet to have a car accident. That doesn’t negate the value of car insurance, does it?
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2015, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/10 "2015-05-04T13:30:50Z")
> [@stpauler](#):
>
> And yet millions of people carry car insurance and have yet to have a car accident. That doesn’t negate the value of car insurance, does it?
What is the value of car insurance that doesn’t cover anything?
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2015, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/11 "2015-05-04T13:38:20Z")
> [@Ludovic](#):
>
> Ironically, if we believe those who use the “well, it’s really a religion because you take things on faith too!” argument, then it _should_ be given 1st amendment protections, which is probably not what they want.
X is true as long as it suits the argument I am trying to make, otherwise, X is false or unknown.
---
### Author:  [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2015, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/12 "2015-05-04T14:04:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> What is the value of car insurance that doesn’t cover anything?
>
> Regards,
> Shodan
Speaking as an underwriter for a major insurance company, the difference between general coverage and specific verbiage in coverage can be the difference in getting money for your claim vs not getting anything.
And it’s not that the policy wouldn’t pay out in both instances, but the fact that you might have to sue first to make sure the insurance company complies with the way the policy is written to be in your favor.
Or, more simple put, the Constitution said specifically that \*\*no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. \*\*
So why was the 1961 Supreme Court case of _[Torcaso v. Watkins](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins)_ necessary?
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2015, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/13 "2015-05-04T19:26:06Z")
> [@stpauler](#):
>
> So why was the 1961 Supreme Court case of _[Torcaso v. Watkins](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins)_ necessary?
Why was the action of the Madison City Council necessary? The question had already been settled fifty four years earlier, and the author of the law mentioned that nothing of the sort had happened since.
My senior year at UW-Madtown was the year that the Pail and Shovel party was elected to the student government by the widest majority in decades. Among the campaign promises of this stellar organization -
[ul][li]Flood Camp Randall stadium and hold naval battles[/li][li]Install a catapult to shoot students to the top of Bascom Hill, to save walking[/li][li]Convert the entire student government budget to pennies, dump them onto State Street mall, and issue each student a pail and shovel so they could get their money’s worth.[/li][li]Their crowning achievement, however, was to promise to purchase the Statue of Liberty and put it into Lake Mendota. As mentioned, they stormed to victory by a wide margin, and the following winter built a _papier-mâché_ replica of the head and torch of Lady Liberty and put on the ice, so it looked as if she were immersed up to her neck. They made the national news.[/ul]Now if the Madison City Council finds the time hanging heavy on their hands and wants some suggestions of useful things they might try, I recommend they track down those folks and ask them. [/li]
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2015, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/14 "2015-05-04T19:38:32Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Why was the action of the Madison City Council necessary? The question had already been settled fifty four years earlier, and the author of the law mentioned that nothing of the sort had happened since.
Actually, the question was settled at the ratification of the Constitution. So why did it need to be resettled? Even more so, why did it need to be resettled at a Supreme Court level?
On top of that , why do things like this STILL pop up after it was settled?
[‘Atheism is not a religion’ says US mayor after city fined $100k for barring atheist exhibition](http://www.christiantoday.com/article/atheism.is.not.a.religion.says.us.mayor.after.city.fined.100k.for.barring.atheist.exhibition/49446.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> A US city and its mayor have been fined $100,000 for refusing to allow an atheist “reason station” to be erected next to a Christian “prayer station” in its city hall.
>
> The action against Warren, the largest city in Macomb County in the state of Michigan, and its mayor, James R Fouts, was brought after a resident Douglas Marshall sought permission to erect the reason station to reflect his own belief in reason and free thought “as an alternative” to God".
That just happened two months ago.
So let’s just say this law removes any ambiguity for those who aren’t educated enough to follow the law set forth by the constitution. Is it redundant? It should be. Yet still we have the stupidity like Warren, MI. There wasn’t even a spoonful of doubt but there Fouts was with his shovel, costing the taxpayers not just the $100K but probably attorney’s fees and increased insurance rates.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2015, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/15 "2015-05-04T19:51:35Z")
> [@stpauler](#):
>
> Actually, the question was settled at the ratification of the Constitution. So why did it need to be resettled? Even more so, why did it need to be resettled at a Supreme Court level?
In that case, there was an actual incident. In the Madison case, even the author says there was not.
> [@](#):
>
> On top of that , why do things like this STILL pop up after it was settled?
Why didn’t the bold and decisive action of the Madison City Council put a stop to it? If the Supreme Court can’t do it, what makes these clowns think they can?
Next up: “Resolved: Visitors from another galaxy must file a flight plan before they land on the grounds of the State Capitol.”
Whew! Another crisis averted!
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2015, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/16 "2015-05-04T21:47:36Z")
So is it your position, **Shodan** , that we should not pass any laws regarding situations that might happen until after they do, in fact, happen?
---
### Author:  [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2015, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/17 "2015-05-04T22:45:20Z")
Well Shodan, as long as you get to use it to insult atheists and secularists, then the law really does have value, don’t it?
---
### Author:  [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2015, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/18 "2015-05-04T23:10:42Z")
No need to put a stop sign on the intersection until somebody gets hit with a car. Same principle.
---
### Author:  [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)
#### Post date: [May 5, 2015, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/19 "2015-05-05T15:00:42Z")
> [@Duckster](#):
>
> Madison is home to the [Freedom From Religion Foundation](https://ffrf.org/). It’s home to UW Madison, a capitol city and historically 70 square miles of sanity.
I dunno about sanity - is Crazy TV Lenny still there?
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [May 5, 2015, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157/20 "2015-05-05T15:44:05Z")
> [@stpauler](#):
>
> Or, more simple put, the Constitution said specifically that \*\*no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. \*\*
>
> So why was the 1961 Supreme Court case of _[Torcaso v. Watkins](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins)_ necessary?
A Maryland notary public is not an “office or public trust under the United States.” The religious test clause has never been applied to the states by the Supreme Court.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/madison-protects-atheists/719157.md?page=2)