I bring this up because of a proposed ordinance here in Portland, Oregon., which reads in part
I think this is definitely a step in the right direction-what say you?
I thought it was already illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion?
I guess. It’s already protected by the Civil Rights Act though. Religious discrimination laws already protect atheists and agnostics, they just don’t like that they are legally classed the same as a religion. I guess if the semantics make them happier that’s cool, but as for the ordinance changing anything- it’s merely lip service for votes. The language in the ordinance really doesn’t do anything.
Being that I think any prejudicial discrimination (as opposed to the idea of simply distinguishing between and understanding different things) should be illegal when practiced by governments, yes!
Meh. A bit like Oklahoma changing their Constitution to prohibit the adoption of Sharia Law. A bit overkill for no immediately useful purpose.
Such as?
Otherwise they are passing a law to make something illegal that is already illegal, and to remove barriers that don’t exist.
This is the moral equivalent of National Artichoke Week. Harmless, time-wasting, and virtue signalling, but depending on the hope of nobody asking “don’t you have anything better to do with your time?”
Regards,
Shodan
If I might hijack ever so slightly, and Czarcasm please shut this down immediately and I’ll understand, what about the question apart from the context of the proposed ordinance? That is, should discrimination against atheists and agnostics be illegal across the board? Because it seems to me to think about this only in terms of Portland, Oregon is a convenient way to side-step the question.
It’s already illegal everywhere in the US. It isn’t therefore possible to discuss this only in terms of Portland.
It already is.
This is rather like Portland saying that women should be given the vote.
Put it this way - I assume an ordinance saying that Christians should not be discriminated against would equally be a step in the right direction. Maybe the Portland city council can do that next. Or, if they are reluctant to do that, to consider what the differences are, if any.
Regards,
Shodan
This is already covered in the US. If you’re talking about other places where such protections don’t exist, of course it would be better if those protections existed.
(Admittedly I’m biased on the subject.)
Although, again, that discussion would be equally pointless unless we first of all establish whether any such places exist.
Obviously, there will be places that have no anti-discrimination laws of any kind. And, probably, there are places that have antidiscrimination laws that cover, e.g., gender but don’t address discrimiation on the basis of religion at all.
But is there anywhere in the word that has antidiscrimination laws that forbid discrimination between people of different religious beliefs, but don’t forbid discrimination as between people of religious beliefs and people without religious beliefs?
That depends, if it is officially recognized as a religion.
Is it legally recognized?
Afaik only employment protections have been ruled as inclusive of a lack of religious beliefs.
Though I can’t think of any instances where people are apt to say you can have any religious beliefs you want and live here, even believing in a lack of dieties, you just can’t not care.
So it may be more like a non-issue
Should a government be able to say that people with a history of child abuse convictions can’t be foster parents? That’s definitely discrimination, and prejudicial to those with such convictions; I don’t really have an objection to it, however.
Discrimination based on factors that don’t matter to your job performance or residence or shopping (factors such as race and religious belief) should always be illegal, but some factors about you may matter. Gamblers aren’t always safe around money, and anti-vaxxers might not be good choices to work in some kinds of health care settings, to give a few other examples.
The link is now broken - dem atheists must have done it.
So, has the discussion on this included any instances of discrimination against atheists? I tend to think that any such discrimination would already be prohibited, and the various atheist programs I’ve been watching haven’t brought it up.
It would be interesting to see if this proposal would bring the wackos out of the woodwork.
I have met a few people who are VERY upset about atheists and would rather someone believe in a “wrong” or “bad” religion (basically, any religion other than theirs) than none at all. Usually also the same people who think atheists are atheists because they’re mad at God, they just can’t comprehend that someone has no religious belief at all. Yes, these folks think atheists are bad people, with comments like not wanting them to be at the same business, or not being willing to rent a home to atheists, and so forth.
So… not a common problem by any stretch, but bias against non-believers most certainly does exist in the US and could, potentially, be a problem.
If there are people out there who can’t comprehend that religious freedom extends to being free of religion then yes, let’s make it explicit in law that you should not discriminate based on a lack of belief.
Wasn’t able to get link to work either. Most are familiar with this: Atheists are still excluded from public office in certain states. That would be a good start doing away with such laws as that, but are in no hurry to do so.
Certain Christians are often in the news encouraging you to patronize only businesses with Christian values, and stay away from others, big or small that are not. Many such lists exist on the intenet, one such list I chose at random.
Not sure how effective it is for them, most Christians don’t seem to be on board, Amazon as well as others on that particular list have done more than okay for themselves.
What does the state law explicitly prohibit?
If it’s just that the law doesn’t specifically mention discrimination against atheists, well, it probably doesn’t specifically mention discrimination against Presbyterians either. What’s the problem?
But if the law says something like “No one shall be discriminated against on the basis of what religion they hold/practice/belong to,” I can see the problem, since atheists don’t belong to any religion per se.
I think atheists scare them because of a fear that they will convert. A different religion is not as scary, as they have to be convinced that someone else’s sky fairy is real, and their one true god is not. It happens, but not all that often. People typically stick to their religions.
OTOH, atheism isn’t switching one supernatural divine being for another, it is actually different. It is removing the need for that supernatural divine being all together.
People have faith in religion. They have “beliefs” that lead them to one religious sect or another. Atheist have science and logic.
I can see why parents would be terrified of their kids having their faith replaced with logic.
Nice combo of straw man and ad hominem. Since the Straight Dope is about fighting ignorance, here’s a good place to start for science- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
Then on to logic, which is studied the most deeply in philosophy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_philosophers
How about tying them together in someone with a PhD in Philosophy of Science: https://www.reasonablefaith.org
Et. Al.
I can see that, I was thinking more along the lines that atheism Is a religious belief , whereas agnosticism is not.
Though I think more believers ( though maybe not many) are more threatened by atheism than agnostics …an agnostic I think is often seen as a target for conversion.
Ummm, nice hostility out of nowhere. I did not straw man, nor ad hominem anything. I gave an explanation as to why I think that they are threatened by atheists. You are free to disagree with it, but coming out of the gate like that with the unjustified assumptions that you made is not really an argument against what I said, but an argument against me being able to say it.
I was responding to Broomsticks comment about people “who are VERY upset about atheists”, not christians in general. If you assumed that I was talking about christians in general, then you are not very good at reading for context.
Are you upset by the existence of atheists? No, then I am not talking about you, so your decision to personalize this and become hostile was entirely one of your own making.
If you are upset by the existence of atheists, then you are not a christian in science and technology, you are not a logistician, and you are not a candidate for a PhD in science.