Atheists being persecuted in the USA.

originally posted by: mahatche

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
a reply to: mahatche

Fair point, the countries where apostasy is punishable by death equally persecute atheists and christians.

Then you have all the other muslim countries were radicals are killing christians out of hate.

I don't think atheists are subject to such violence regularly outside incidents involving crazies (I was talking about organized violence), and I don't believe they are being persecuted in the US.

Do you?

Depends what your definition of persecution is. If it's only violence against people, no it's not common in America, but Christians aren't regularly killed here either.

If persecution includes being forced to uphold religions you don't subscribe to, yes it does happen here. There is no reason why a gay atheist or non christian should have to legally follow christian law.

What Christian laws are they forced to follow?

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
a reply to: mahatche

Modern Christians don't believe god punishes people, only that people punish themselves.

Fundamentalism is from another time.

My problem isn't with the average christian. I appreciate anyone who treats me with respect. The problem comes from the many fundamentalists within our government. Some of our politicians actually practice dominion theology. I oppose them, not you.

They stand in the way of the laws I think should disappear, and they do it because they feel it's their moral duty to keep me on the path of Christ. If I say I don't want to walk that path, I'm treated like a Satan worshiper who needs these laws that much more.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

What Christian laws are they forced to follow?

Almost every time a politician opens their mouth to oppose gay rights, they do it in the name of their religion.

originally posted by: mahatche

originally posted by: NavyDoc

What Christian laws are they forced to follow?

Almost every time a politician opens their mouth to oppose gay rights, they do it in the name of their religion.

And what rights are being opposed. They cannot own property? Cannot face a jury of their peers when confronted with a crime? Cannot vote? Own firearms? What rights are being forbidden them?

State Constitutions that Discriminate Against Atheists

Arkansas State Constitution, Article 19 Section 1 ("Miscellaneous Provisions")
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court.

Maryland's Declaration of Rights:
Article 36
"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."

Article 37
"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God;"

Massachusetts' State Constitution, Article 3
"Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law."
Comment: Apparently non-Christians are not "equally under the protection of the law".

Note: this part of the Massachusetts' State Constitution was amended. Here is Article XI of the Articles of Amendment:
"Article XI. Instead of the third article of the bill of rights, the following modification and amendment thereof is substituted.
As the public worship of God and instructions in piety, religion and morality, promote the happiness and prosperity of a people and the security of a republican government; -- therefore, the several religious societies of this commonwealth, whether corporate or unincorporate, at any meeting legally warned and holden for that purpose, shall ever have the right to elect their pastors or religious teachers, to contract with them for their support, to raise money for erecting and repairing houses for public worship, for the maintenance of religious instruction, and for the payment of necessary expenses: and all persons belonging to any religious society shall be taken and held to be members, until they shall file with the clerk of such society, a written notice, declaring the dissolution of their membership, and thenceforth shall not be liable for any grant or contract which may be thereafter made, or entered into by such society: -- and all religious sects and denominations, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good citizens of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law." [See Amendments, Arts. XLVI and XLVIII, The Initiative, section 2, and The Referendum, section 2]."

Mississippi State Constitution. Article 14 ("General Provisions"), Section 265
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."

North Carolina's State Constitution, Article 6 Section 8
"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

Pennsylvania's State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

South Carolina's State Constitution, Article VI
Section 2:
"No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."
Section 5: The oath of office ends in,
"So help me God."

Tennessee's State Constitution, Article 9 Section 2
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

Texas' State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
www.godlessgeeks.com...

Note
All laws against atheists holding office were ruled unconstitutional and unenforceable by the 1961 Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins on a first amendment basis.

It should be noted that in some cases, the constitutionality of these statutes are yet to be tested. Regardless, the citations herein clearly show the extent to which non-theists are un-ambiguously, actively and aggressively discriminated against.

www.freethoughtpedia.com...

So there are some of the facts about discrimination against atheists. I am glad that the supreme court has ruled that the state constitutions pertaining to the discrimination against atheists is unconstitutional but the fact that the states have not amended their constitutions to reflect such is an affront to my senses. With all the arguments about state rights going on certainly makes e a bit uncomfortable. They certainly do not foster confidence that atheists wouldn't be persecuted for such.

It is hard enough for an atheist to be elected as is without laws being on the books against them.

If an atheist manages to be elected and announced his beliefs openly he must be a pretty stand up guy to have done so.
I am only aware of one or two that have managed that feat.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Interesting facts....but I can't assume the validity of each......Although I have never been a witness in court, I'm unaware of any "Do you hold a belief in God?" conversations prior to testimony...

As for atheists in office, there have been several outspoken atheists who have held office...Even Vincent Hallinan who ran for Presidential office in 1952....and was actually the 3rd highest candidate...

However, it's important to note cases like Barney Frank...who openly admitted his nonbeliever status a few months after retiring....and 25 years AFTER openly admitting to being gay...This is representative of the stigma surrounding atheism(in particular) in electoral politics...

Many of our politicians may actually be atheist but are not willing to admit it...Which also correlates with a recent poll of religion, where it was found that out of nearly 20% of "unaffiliated" respondents, only 2.4% identified as atheists but nearly 6% identified themselves as "having no believe in God or a universal spirit."

source

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Vincent Hallinan as far as I know never held office. I didn't say atheists haven't ran for political positions, but I did say if one was elected that had been open about it he must be a stand up guy/gal. That is because of the stigma as you pointed out.

Barney Frank is one of the two I eluded to knowing were atheists however he only felt he could reveal such after his role as a politician was over.

This conversation has made me curious so I looked it up and this is what I found. The ones in BOLD are those who actually held an office.

I have no idea as to which ones were open about being an atheist while holding office. I think Ventura was.

United States[edit]
Rocky Anderson (b. 1951): 2012 Justice Party Presidential Candidate and former mayor of Salt Lake City, UT [154]
Charles T. Beaird (1922–2006): Republican Party member and newspaper publisher.[155]
Cecil Bothwell (b. 1950): Asheville, North Carolina city council member, who was nearly denied his position because of his atheism.
Lori Lipman Brown (b. 1958): Politician, lobbyist, lawyer, educator, and social worker supporter, Nevada state senator from 1992 to 1994.[156]
Douglas Campbell (b. 1959): Atheist advocate and member of the Green Party of Michigan and of the Godless Americans Political Action Committee.[157] Co-founder, Michigan Godless Americans Political Action Committee.[158] Green Party candidate for governor of Michigan in both 2002 and 2006.
Ernie Chambers (b. 1937): Nebraska State Senator and civil rights activist.[159]
S. E. Cupp (b. 1979): Political commentator and writer.[160][161]
Clarence Darrow (1857–1938): Lawyer and leading member of the American Civil Liberties Union, best known for defending John T. Scopes in the so-called Monkey Trial.[162][163][164]
Sean Faircloth (b. circa 1960): Attorney, served five terms in the Maine Legislature including appointments on the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees.
Barney Frank (b. 1940): U.S. Representative (1981-2013) (D-MA).[165]
Thomas Gore, (1870 – 1949): United States Senator (D-OK), from 1907 until 1921 and from 1931 until 1937.[166]
Vincent Hallinan (1896–1992): Lawyer who ran for president of the United States in 1952, the third highest polling candidate in the election.[167]
James Kennedy (b. 1953): Former mayor of Rahway, New Jersey. An American politician and member of the Democratic Party.
Heather Mac Donald (b. 1956): Writer and lawyer, member of the Manhattan Institute and author of The Burden of Bad Ideas: How Modern Intellectuals Misshape Our Society.[168]
Culbert Olson (1876–1962): Politician and Governor of California from 1939 to 1943.[169]
Kyrsten Sinema (b. 1976): U.S. Representative (D-AZ), Member of the Arizona Senate (2011-2012), Member of the Arizona House of Representatives (2005-2011).[170]
Pete Stark (b. 1931): U.S. Representative (1973-2013) (D-CA), the first openly atheist member of Congress.[171]
Eddie Tabash: Lawyer and atheist activist and debater.[172]
Jesse Ventura (b. 1951): Former Governor of Minnesota, veteran, wrestler, actor, and talk show host.[173][174][175]
Alan Wolfe: Political scientist and sociologist, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life.[176]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Grimpachi

Right, Hallinan never held office, I didn't mean to imply that he did. My wording was a bit off as I reread it now...

However, I do believe there are significantly more atheists than what we currently believe in office....which may in fact be due to stigma (your previous post indicates it may have a negative impact on upwards of 53% of voting individuals...)

But as far as I can tell, it is much like the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the armed forces....Politicians are less likely to openly admit their atheism because they are not completely ignorant of the consequences they'd face from their fundamentalist "friends"....

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

I am not arguing that in the least.

I am sure there are more atheists holding office or have held an office but if you have to hide it then that says a lot.

I forgot to point out one of the names on the list I posted.

Cecil Bothwell (b. 1950): Asheville, North Carolina city council member, who was nearly denied his position because of his atheism.

I think he had to take it to court though I am not sure. It makes me wonder why they keep such things in their state constitutions.

a reply to: boymonkey74

The problem, as I see it, is this -



If only those damn dirty atheists would keep their damn dirty mouths shut and suck it up...

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

The problem is more that the smart atheists don't even care about debating deluded religious people while the ones who do are almost all loud, obnoxious, smug people who just can't get a life and only exist by being angry at something.

Just like Christian fundies.

It's quite ironic in fact.

How Do European Christians Perceive American Christians?

One of the signs that American Christianity is as much defined by American political and economic ideology as it is by anything "Christian" is the degree to which American Christianity differs from Christianity in other nations. European Christians for example -- including European evangelicals -- sometimes look upon American Christianity with a mix of horror and disbelief. They just don't understand how Christianity can come to look like it does here.
An ex-Christian writes about conversation he had with a French Christian who may be becoming an ex-Christian -- in part because of his bad experiences with American Christianity:

Top on his list: the confluence of faith and politics, maliciously attempted social engineering and the obsession with power and influence.

He simply could not understand how the American Church had taken something so deeply personal and introspective, and turned it into a daily public spectacle. The desire for personal piety had been transformed into a need to impose and ensure the piety of others, whether they believed it or not.

In his view, these were the tenets of theocracy. American Christians had taken the ideals of liberty and freedom for granted; looking to foist their particular expression of liberty on those simply trying to exercise the very same right.

Yet, this is what happens when one becomes engrossed in a myopic culture that takes an all or nothing view of truth, and as a result, any semblance of humility is thrown straight out the window .

At the end of the day, I believe that this stubborn certitude and general lack of humility is what has become so incredibly off-putting to so many of my generation. In the land of the liberty and religious freedom, the faith of the supposedly meek and humble has become the billy club of the oligarchical and the hegemonic.

Source: Diary of a Beleaver

I'm not sure that "certitude" is necessarily off-putting. Confidence can actually be a lot more attractive than being so "humble" that you no longer look like you definitely stand for something. Certitude isn't necessarily a problem, but certitude combined with constantly being wrong is. Lack of humility isn't great but not necessarily a killer; a lack of humility in the face of constantly being wrong is.

And it's clear that conservative, evangelical Christianity is constantly wrong -- but I'm not even talking about theological matters. I'm talking about political matters: wrong about their opposition to gay rights and gay marriage, wrong about their opposition to contraception, wrong about their opposition to women's equality, wrong about their anti-environmentalism, etc.

Younger generations are recognizing how wrong conservative evangelical leaders are on all these political issues and I wonder if this is leading them to ask harder questions about the theological issues as well. It's reasons to ask how the evangelical leaders could be so right in their religious claims when they get so much so wrong in their political claims. This is one of the problems with combining religion and politics from the religious perspective: political error and political corruption all reflect back on religion. It leads to unnecessary alienation and dissatisfaction -- in other words, it leads to a massive "own goal."

Basically, the problem in the US isn't so much with "Christianity" as it is with the type of Christianity being present there.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

The problem is more that the smart atheists don't even care about debating deluded religious people while the ones who do are almost all loud, obnoxious, smug people who just can't get a life and only exist by being angry at something.

Just like Christian fundies.

It's quite ironic in fact.

Can you please stop referring to religious people as deluded...
I do not refer to atheists as deluded....because I respect their beliefs...I expect the same from you.

A2D

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

The problem is more that the smart atheists don't even care about debating deluded religious people while the ones who do are almost all loud, obnoxious, smug people who just can't get a life and only exist by being angry at something.

Just like Christian fundies.

It's quite ironic in fact.

The world is in trouble because the wise are timid and the fools are bold.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

The problem is more that the smart atheists don't even care about debating deluded religious people while the ones who do are almost all loud, obnoxious, smug people who just can't get a life and only exist by being angry at something.

Just like Christian fundies.

It's quite ironic in fact.

Can you please stop referring to religious people as deluded...
I do not refer to atheists as deluded....because I respect their beliefs...I expect the same from you.

A2D

I refer to the fundamentalists who believe the earth is 6000 years old as deluded, because it's what they are, on top of being judgemental and attacking anyone thinking differently. Not religious people in general. I'm not even an atheist or an agnostic actually.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity


The world is in trouble because the wise are timid and the fools are bold.

"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell

So very true.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

The problem is more that the smart atheists don't even care about debating deluded religious people while the ones who do are almost all loud, obnoxious, smug people who just can't get a life and only exist by being angry at something.

Just like Christian fundies.

It's quite ironic in fact.

As an atheist, I believe that any belief in a god at all, since no gods have ever been demonstrated to actually exist, whether by your definition they are moderate or extreme, is a delusion.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

A delusion is a belief held despite proofs of the opposite, not the absence of proofs like it's the case for the existence of a god.

You can say religion is delusion and it would be your opinion, but it doesn't fit the definition. And with the same logic I could say anti-theism is delusion too since there is no proof that no god exists.


On the other hand, saying the earth is 6000 years old IS a delusion.


Also it's worth reminding that there are non-theistic religions, and even many people who declare to be Christians and yet non-theist. So any generalization about religious people are usually just that; generalizations.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

A delusion is a belief held despite proofs of the opposite, not the absence of proofs like it's the case for the existence of a god.

You can say religion is delusion and it would be your opinion, but it doesn't fit the definition. And with the same logic I could say anti-theism is delusion too since there is no proof that no god exists.


On the other hand, saying the earth is 6000 years old IS a delusion.

Well that is a nice worldview and all, but you are not addressing the burden of proof.

The burden of proof lies on those making the claim, not with those who dispute or reject the claim.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

You addressed none of my points. It has nothing to do with the burden of proof (and even then, absence of evidence has never been considered evidence of absence by any rational person).

My point is you say theism is a delusion but it doesn't fit the definition.

To be delusional there must exist a proof of the contrary. There is simply none regarding the existence of gods. So theism is simply a belief, like anti-theism. Not a delusion.



By your logic, again, any thought experiment or unprovable hypothesis is delusion, which is silly.

Do you go around saying those who theorize time travel or the existence of multiverses are delusional? I don't think so.


Anti-theists who think their position is the pinnacle of rational thinking are completely wrong.

That's why the most smart and critical scientists never say they are anti-theists. Only that there is no proof of the existence of god.