although i'm agnostic, i don't think of atheists as reasoning; i'd prefer to think of them (and us) as skeptics. absent empirical proof (or faith), that's all one can be.
But often times people are discriminating. There are many studies where people wouldn't vote for a non-Christian let alone an Atheist. Heck, people have trouble voting for a Mormon. While you are making a theoretical point, the reality is that people do make their vote tied to religion. There is a belief that atheists are less moral than religious people. And I think that is a very negative stereotype. So I can see a movement or rally like this to show that this is not true, that Atheists are good people and should be respected in society as trusted contributors - ones that you might even consider electing.
The real problem isn't that atheists aren't considered eligible for public office; the real problem is this: Seriously? Where are the unicorns?
I don't see this as kind of a big deal. When atheists start knocking on doors to de-religion people en masse, yes, that's when they are going too far. Which will be next on their agenda.
its a misleading statistic that uses the incorrect definition of atheism. ('one whom believes there is no god') using the proper definition ('one whom lacks belief in a god'), all anti-deists, agnostics, and anyone who is unaffiliated or non-theist falls under the guise of atheist. About 16% of the country. 20% if you include the responders who answered 'I don't know/no response'.
No, that's the number of people who call themselves atheists. And the vast majority of the 12.1% of the unaffiliated are deists or theists, they just don't subscribe to any particular religion.
Yes, using the incorrect definition. Evidence of this? http://religions.pewforum.org/reports# 6.3 Secular unaffiliated 5.8 Religious unaffiliated I think it would be kind of silly to classify anybody who falls under "no religion in particular" as "gnostic", fyi.
I wouldn't say it's discrimination. I wouldn't say religion, or lack of, is like race or gender. Those things affect your outward appearance. Your faith, or lack of, is very much a part of your decision making process. Being atheiest doesn't mean you have less morals but it does mean you have different morals.
Based on the true definition of the word, it absolutely is discrimination (which people are allowed to do for whatever reason they want, some of which are more valid than others). It's not, however, persecution (systemic). Unless you want to tangentially link this treatment to things like the state's endorsement of religion (under nation under god-- who would elect an atheist if that is the national motto?), etc. Many people would say that being black, or a woman, or gay, doesn't mean you have less values/morals, but it does mean you have different morals/values. So, I'd say religious preference, despite it not being something you wear on your face, falls under that purview. Because, let's face it, the next time we vote for somebody without knowing their religious preferences will be the first time. Bottom line is, people have a tendency to be prejudiced against atheists in this overwhelmingly religious country (not just at the polling booth, mind you, atheism are also the least likely to be hired "group" of people). That's the baseline definition of discrimination. Whether it is something you wear on your sleeve or not is irrelevant.
I guess I can agree with your true definition argument but in that case it's discrimination not to vote for someone because they are a Republican. Typically, the persecution is implied. I don't think you can assume different morals based on race and gender. It's a possibility but not guaranteed. There are blacks and women on all sides of every issue, even the ones that directly affect them (affirmative action, abortion,etc). So, most voters will hear them out before casting their ballots. Sexuality will cause people to have some different morals but I think many voters don't see it affecting most aspects of their decisions. Many people consider their religion to be the backbone behind ALL of their decisions. If you are not of their religion, you can not be trusted to represent them the way they want you to, even if you agree on all current issues. The atheist not being hired bit is interesting to me. I don't see why it should come up, that sounds unprofessional to me. And with all things unprofessional, it only ends bad for you if the person on the other end doesn't like it. Sexual harassment is fine if the other person is attracted to you, extremely casual clothing is fine if your coworkers/boss are laid back, etc. Yes, many people don't like atheists. I agree, that does suck. I just don't see that it's the barrier you make it out to be. These folks just don't want you making the decisions they would otherwise turn to God to guidance for. It's surprising that I'm the one making this arguments here when I'm all in favor of religion having nothing to do with my government and would welcome an atheist in office, at any level.
My earlier post stated that this is what I thought the rally is about. If it's about inequality, people can stand behind it. There's no need to defend what you believe. I feel sorry for anybody that makes you feel the need to do so. Intelligent/non-bigoted people see through the "Obama is a muslim" mud slinging. There is zero correlation between being a relgious or having a religious affiliation AND doing a job that is part of a nation that prides itself on religious and personal freedoms. The hypocrisy of America can be disgusting at times. Your religion is what you do when the sermon is over. ~Quoted in P.S. I Love You, compiled by H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
Absolutely it is discrimination not to vote for somebody because they have a D or R next to their name. Doesn't change the fact that atheists are discriminated against as well. It's just a matter of scope, intensity, and value (for example, do you feel it is justified to make choices based on D/R?). What do you mean by "implied persecution"? Like I said, persecution is systemic. We put that one to bed a while ago. Morals, values, beliefs, principles, experiences, leanings, biases, etc. Call it what you want, it's really a different name for the same thing. Every part of what we are (from the color of our skin, where we grew up, what religion we follow, etc) has some affect on those things. Or at the very least, colors other people's perceptions of us. It sounds like you're saying discrimination based on religious preference is more understandable/justified, and while I agree that it can/should be, I also disagree in the sense that I can bring myself to vote for a guy who is Christian and shares my social views (for example, MadMax) over an agnostic who does not (basso, etc.). If I picked basso over MadMax, I'd be doing myself a horrible disservice by discriminating based purely on religion. I know I keep that to myself bigtime at my workplace... meanwhile, religious people are out-and-about without any fear of reprisal. It doesn't/shouldn't come up, and for good reason, but in polls and surveys, it has been shown to be the least hireable/desireable characteristic for potential employers (most of whom, are, unsurprisingly religious) time and time again. Probably because of a few hundred/thousand year smear campaign, those things'll do that to ya. And that's their call to make, be it wrong or right. But to claim the barrier doesn't exist, well, is just silly. Try living it. It's not easy. (I'm tempted to talk about the plight of a former member of this BBS, but it's a fresh wound, so I'll leave it at that). I don't really know why you're making this argument either. Every empirical data point backs up the discrimination claim. Discrimination isn't a 4-letter word. Sometimes it's a good thing. Sometimes it's not. By-and-large, though, I think we can agree that in the case of the secular community, it's not been a very good or fair thing.
Yeah, a lot of people (myself included) will list themselves as Christian, but really don't believe in christianity or usually god for that matter. If you look at censuses and surveys in Europe, you'll see something similar. It will appear that 90% of the country is Christian, until you see that half of them don't believe in God.
Yeah, I was just a little miffed by the comparison to race, gender, and even sexual preference. Religion is more of a viewpoint like the Rep/Dem example. There is discrimination but the barriers are based on how people feel about your views. It's not based in hate for the way you were born. Very, very, different.
Eh, like I said, sometimes people don't dig deep enough to know what those views actually are. It's a convenient excuse to exclude people based on flimsy reasoning for most people. And I'd very much disagree that religion is purely "choice". The biggest determining factor of one's religious leaning is where they were born, and who they were born to. So, while it's not in our DNA like race or height, most of the time, we really don't have a choice. Or the choice we have is very limited, if not severely hampered/restricted.
Can't you believe in Christian values as a philosophy without a literal belief of the mythology? Wouldn't you still be a Christian? (or would be a christian without the capital)
This is the part where we agree to disagree to keep from engaging in pointless back and forth. Well yeah, except for that whole Christ believing he was the son of God thing.
Yes, you can, but it's called having certain values without being Christian. Christianity, or religion in general for that matter, doesn't have a ™ or © on values. I guess sharing certain values makes some project that they are Christians, or christians in this case, even if some might say they are not... for various reasons. It's all relative, but what is the real question?
In a similar vein http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...-atheists-plan-to-rock-the-base-at-fort-bragg Foxhole atheists plan to rock the base at Fort Bragg After a sometimes painful 18 months of gestation, Sgt. Justin Griffith of Fort Bragg, N.C., exclaims, "My baby is about to be born!" His baby is Rock Beyond Belief, apparently the first major atheist event on a U.S. military base. Griffith, 29, who has served five years in the Army, including two deployments to Iraq, has been wrestling with the overwhelmingly Christian establishment in the Army since September 2010 to get to this point. The March 31 event is Griffith’s answer to Rock the Fort — a day-long evangelical Christian concert and festival held at Fort Bragg on Sept. 25, 2010, put on by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, with the support and blessing of the military brass. It was the fourth in a series of events sponsored by the group on various U.S. bases dating to 2009. Among the headliners for the all-day atheist festival on the base are scientist Richard Dawkins, the rock band Aiden and singer/songwriter Roy Zimmerman. Griffith is most proud that the event has garnered the same material support from the military that it gave the evangelical Christian event. This week, he announced that he had secured a commitment for the U.S. Army Golden Knights — an elite skydiving team — to perform in the festival, despite the reluctance of some of the team’s Christian members. "We asked for apples-to-apples treatment to the (Christian) event," said Griffith. "We fought for it. I won. I think (Fort Bragg leadership) won too because they did the right thing." Griffith, who describes himself as a hardcore atheist, said he loves the Army, but he is constantly chafing at prayers — Christian, or non-specific invocations — that routinely are included in military ceremonies. But the Rock the Fort concert and festival spurred him to action. "They bragged that they got hundreds of soldiers … to accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior," said Griffith of the concert-festival series. "That is unacceptable. The chaplain’s job is not to grow their flock, it’s their job to take tend to the existing flock." Griffith was the most outspoken critic of the event on the base, though a number of groups — Freedom from Religion Foundation, American United for the Separation of Church and State and others — said the event violated the constitutional separation of church and state. Lt. Gen. Frank Helmick who leads the 13th Airborne Corps responded by saying that soldiers were not pressured to attend the event, and assured critics that he would provide the same opportunity to non-Christian groups that wanted to host similar events, according to a USA Today report at the time. Garrison Commander Stephen Sicinski provided a similar guarantee in writing, Griffith said. So Griffith started planning Rock Beyond Belief. The process was bumpy — and bureaucratic — but the event was eventually approved for April 2011. But when he learned that the forum set aside for the event would hold only a few hundred people — "a broom closet" in his estimation — he canceled it. Arguing that Dawkins, a noted genetics scientist and atheist celebrity, alone routinely pulls much larger crowds than that, he reapplied for a bigger venue this year, and won approval for the March 31 gathering, a year later. Rock Beyond Belief has drawn some fierce criticism. Army Chaplain Chuck Williams, for example, posted an open letter on Fort Bragg’s Facebook page calling for cancelation of the event, which he contended is being held only "to secure a public, government-owned venue to ridicule, mock and disparage those of our fellow Soldiers and family members who do profess a faith in God." He also wrote that "part of this event will be glorifying violence against people who possess a faith in God through the burning of churches," a reference to lyrics from a song by Aiden. "This is appalling!" Griffith blames a Fox News commentary by Todd Starnes for the furor, charging that he misunderstood the lyrics, which were satirical. The band’s lead singer wrote that the song “Hysteria” was actually a condemnation of faith-on-faith violence and hatred. Although the event appears set to go forward, the debate continues. Griffith said he has received "bizarre death threats," but he also feels the conversation is changing, and putting Fort Bragg in a new light. "I’m so proud of Fort Bragg and this is not supposed to be a black eye to them," he said. "These little corrections are important, and the Army deserves them. I want to know if I have crumbs on my face. That’s what this is. If it’s a big deal it’s only temporarily a big deal."
