Not a single case of anti-atheist discrimination in 2007, according to US Commission?

Great Debates
41

Bush did comment that “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God”

No “perhaps” about it. Atheists are the least trusted group in America.

As for me, given the level of fear and hatred there is towards atheists in this country, I find the idea that there’s not one incident of discrimination towards us ridiculous. Not one kid is harassed because he doesn’t want to pledge alliegience to America “under God” in the pledge of allegience, not one person fired by a religious boss for being atheist, not one person divorced or beaten by a spouse for atheism, not one kid beaten or disowned by a parent for atheism. This is a country where people openly say on 60 Minutes that they’d prefer their children die to becoming an atheist, and I’m supposed to believe that there’s not one incident of discrimination ?

These people are incompetents or liars.

42

Atheism is not the driving force behind the dismissive attitude- your points are being dismissed because they are vague assertions with no evidence to back them up.

No, the fact that one Democrat has admitted it and made headlines makes it UNUSUAL. The majority of people in this country are Christians of one stripe or another. That someone is not, is, by definition, unusual.

“Nobody” who admits to atheism gets elected because generally, people first vote along party lines, then according to their pet issue (be it taxes or abortion or school vouchers), then according to general congruence of issues, then maybe according to gender… and so on, with “religious denomination” not cracking the Big Three or maybe even the Big Five.

Besides, atheists are such a minority that even if they voted en masse for any one candidate, no matter what electoral district, be it local, State, or Federal, their combined numbers would not make a dent in the results. The bloc “atheists” does not generate large enough percentage points to be noticed.

Anybody can be told to fuck off. Whether or not that’s a wise move is dependent on a number of factors, many of which are linked to a groups political or economic power.

You’re beginning to melt down here. I realize that your points seem rational and coherent to you, but your personal investment in them is leading you to assign them a weight that, objectively, they do not have. Your belief in your rightness is causing you to overstate or miss the counterpoints people are making.

But let me try again- atheists are NOT discriminated against. The negative reaction you perceive is a result of your seeing the results you want to see and your inability to come to grips with just how small a minority self-professed atheists are.

43

It’s a strange society we live in, when the Christian Right can think there’s a “war on Christmas”, at the same time atheists think that they’re a persecuted minority.

I’ll grant the following: there are prejudices against atheists among believers. That there are probably many, many politicians (historically, and to this day) who are closeted atheists. (Shock! Politicians will dissemble to get elected!). That the US practices “ceremonial deism” and the Supreme Court has held that this does not violate the First Amendment.

I’ll also stipulate that the overwhelming tide of judicial opinion in the past 50 years has tended *toward * recognition of freedom FROM religion as protected by the First Amendment.

To my mind, this does not add up to oppression of the atheistic minority. Minor annoyance, maybe…but on the list of society’s ills, pretty far down.

44

You’re missing the point yet again.

People who convert to Christianity and are persecuted for it make the news because they did something- they engaged in a ceremony or refused prayer services.

People who hold atheist beliefs and tell nobody do not make the news because they haven’t taken any affirmative steps to get noticed. The exact same thing would apply to someone who accepted Jesus in the Protestant fashion yet continued to live a Muslim life. The “discrimination” against him would go undocumented because there’d be no way to document it.

“There must be many people who think like I do although I am unable to ducument them! And someone should do something about their suffering!” is not an arguable point.

45

Earlier in your post you said that there may be a vast number of individuals who do not identify themselves as atheist/agnostic because of the associated stereotypes.
I found that interesting because I experience a similar dilemma with Christianity.
My personal beliefs would be classified, almost universally, as some form of Christianity.
However, I am apprehensive (not fearful) to describe myself as a Christian (even though I am) because of the associated stereotypes (unthinking, ignorant, illogical).
I would rather demonstrate my beliefs independently than rely on a label to describe myself.

46

And Valteron, be careful when you accuse one side of being dismissive or arrogant.

47

Wait a minute. Are you me? :slight_smile:

48

What you are doing is in fact attempting to refute my points through a thinly disguised ad hominem argument coupled with a condescending bit of arrogant amateur psychoanalysis of my alleged motives. Thank you for your concern, but I am quite cool and unmelting thanks.

I could say that your own belief in your rightness is causing you to overstate or miss the counterpoints people are making, but I do not indulge in that kind of bullshit.

One of the cruelest and most inhuman things you can do to a minority group is to pretend that its complaints are imaginary. Ask blacks, Catholics or Jews how often they have tasted that one.

49

Gee, I’d rather think it is because of the fact that it is a commission devoted to international religious freedom. Therefore, the issues of home-grown atheists aren’t part of their charter to study.

50

Okay, now that’s a little far-fetched.
Maybe if atheists were sent to concentration camps or abducted from this country in order to serve “religious” people, this statement would have merit.
Comparing the struggles of an atheist to the struggles of these groups is wrong.

51

You might want to look up “ad hominem.” I refuted your points; I did not attack you.

Please address the following points:

And this one as well:

52

CORRECTION:
Using the suffering of these groups in an attempt to further your argument, or lend it credibility, is wrong.

53

Perhaps you could tell me how you would reconcile the two concepts:

  1. It is all right to put “In God we Trust” on currency, because the vast majority of Americans believe in God, and atheists who object are too small a group to matter.

  2. So would it be all right to print: “In God and His Son Jesus we Trust” on the money for the same reason? Or would Jews and Muslims who do not believe Jesus was the Son of God have a legitimate complaint, even though they are a small minority of Americans?

54

Because you’re the one who is supposed to be putting forward the debate.

It is YOU that is supposed to put forth a coherent point and defend it.

This is your thread, started to expose discrimination against atheists. The examples you have given have been unfounded.

I will be happy to debate another point when you concede the above.

55

Wrong Bush.

56

No, it would not be all right, and it would never stand up to judicial scrutiny. “In God We Trust” is meaningless ceremonial deism. Adding the reference to Jesus makes it an endorsement of Christianity.

57

Pete is my congressman. He “admitted” it in response to a survey - in 4 previous elections while I’ve been here, it hasn’t come up.

Not that it would matter. Besides being very liberal, his district has a high proportion of non-Christians, including very significant populations from China, India and Afghanistan. We’re about as close to an optimal district for an atheist as you could imagine.

Still, Pete did attend a Unitarian church, though, knowing him, I doubt it was for cover. BTW, comments from church leaders were pretty positive, the only negative one I saw being from the leader of the local Sikh group. Pete’s seat is not in any danger from this.

58

A distinction without a difference. Everyone knows that the God on money and in the pledge refers to the Christian God. And it’s a slap at religions that don’t have a single “God” as well as at atheists.

59

You asked me to address the following: You said:

“Nobody” who admits to atheism gets elected because generally, people first vote along party lines, then according to their pet issue (be it taxes or abortion or school vouchers), then according to general congruence of issues, then maybe according to gender… and so on, with “religious denomination” not cracking the Big Three or maybe even the Big Five."

Then you are in fact saying that whether or not a person is an atheist should make little or no difference, if religious denomination is not part of the big three or even the big five.

Fine. Therefore, one would expect that since atheists are a small minority but certainly not nonexistant in the class of educated people from which most politicians come, there should, out of thousands of governors, state assemblymen, state senators, congressmen and federal senators elected over the past few decades be at least SOME number of avowed atheists. Even if avowed atheists are just one or two per cent of the population, one per cent of say, five thousand is still 50. Now, I admit I do not know the exact number of individuals elected in the US over the past couple of decades, but it must be in the thousands. Nor am I saying that the number of avowed atheists elected has to be 50. But when it is soooo rare that one guy admitting it last month and one California Governor in 1939 is all we have, some prejudice is operating somewhere. Either being an atheist is a bar to gettiong elected or else there ARE atheists in Congress and the Senate who are too smart or scared to admit it because they know the level of prejudice that exists.
You said:

“Besides, atheists are such a minority that even if they voted en masse for any one candidate, no matter what electoral district, be it local, State, or Federal, their combined numbers would not make a dent in the results. The bloc “atheists” does not generate large enough percentage points to be noticed.”

Now you are getting completely irrelevant. I never said that it was a matter of atheists “electing” other atheists by their numbers. Take that, straw man! :smiley:

For that matter Jews are only 1.4% of Americans. There is no majoritively Jewish state. I do not know how many majoritively or even heavily Jewish electroral districts there are, but can there be that many if they are 1.4% of the population? But as someone pointed out, 6.7% of (federal?) legislators are Jewish. We have had and have now many fine Jewish senators. Good. Fine. That proves that while anti-semitism may exist, it is not all that active among American voters. I congratulate US voters for that.

Now compare that with the fact that a majority of Americans have said they would NOT vote for an atheist for President even if he had the qualifications. Is there a prejudice operating there? You bet!

60

So by inventing this concept of “ceremonial deism” you make it OK to tell atheists to fuck off, because they are too small a minority to matter. Apparently, Diesm is not a religious opinion, and the state is not promoting one religious viewpoint over another with that slogan.

But adding a reference to Jesus would indeed be an unconstitutional endorsement of a religious viewpoint by the state. And even though belief in Jesus is a majority viewpoint, it cannot be imposed on other religions.

Losta logic there, folks! :dubious: