It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Anti-Atheist Conspiracy?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+18 more 
posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 06:45 PM
I have seen on this board, numerous times, accusations that there is an anti-Christian conspiracy, and that Christians are persecuted and discriminated against in this country. I have always thought to the contrary, considering the number of Christians vs. the numbers of members of other religions and non religions.

Christians have not been persecuted since Rome.

I do, however, have evidence that there may be an anti-atheist conspiracy, which goes contrary to our federal Constitution, namely that in seven states of the US, the state constitutions prohibit atheists from holding public office.

These states are:

North Carolina
South Carolina

There is not a single state in the US that prohibits Christians from holding office.

My question is this: why claim to be discriminated against, when in fact, those that make the claim are doing the discrimination?

Why is it so hard to accept that atheists can be upstanding and ethical without needing a god?

What if these state constitutions disallowed a race of people to be barred from office? Would that make a difference to anyone's point of view?

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 03:41 AM
MM call me crazy but I find the fact that a state can openly deny someone from holding office on the basis of religion (or more so the lack there of) totally outrageous and out right un-American! I may not be the most intelligent person on this forum, but isn’t that kind of unconstitutional? In all actuality I would prefer an Atheist to hold office over a person of faith. I think that a person with out faith would not be blinded by religious agendas and what not and actually get things done! I am a man of faith and that is my opinion.

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 05:06 AM
Well if you read the whole article it already tells you that a state cant do it under the first ammendment which supercedes all state law to begin with. Just to point a small thing out, four of those states are in the original thirteen and one is the sixteenth, apparently the founders of the nation didnt find those constitutions to be troublesome, probably for that very reason. So while it is on paper is really by no means enforcable today.

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 05:11 AM

But according to the opinion written by Justice Hugo Black, no government, either state or federal, "can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' " Nor can either government "impose requirements which aid all religions as against nonbelievers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs."

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 05:53 AM
Ah, curse my skimming ways!
Well that is good to hear (well read). I guess it mould make little sence that those laws would still be in effect today.

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 06:18 AM
i have to agree with the OP. there truly is an anti-atheist conspiracy going on. Just look at whenever an atheist is on the media for anything at all... they treat them like anarchists.

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:29 AM
Just because the feds say something is illegal does not mean the states follow it.

For instance, the medical cannabis movement. Several states have passed laws allowing for it, but the feds are still arresting patients and saying it's illegal under federal law. State's Rights went out the window with the Civil War, and yet these states are still allowing medical cannabis despite the feds saying no, and making busts.

If these laws were irrelevant, they would no longer be part of the states' constitutions.

The fact that they are there means that the laws can be used against an atheist running for office. Even if the feds say it's unconstitutional by their standards, it would still require the candidate who has been refused the right to run to take it all the way to the Supreme Court, a process of several years, and with the Court in the configuration it is today, there is no guarantee that the atheist would win. Even if he or she did, the point would be moot for him personally, as someone else would already be in office.

I find this to be extremely discriminatory. If it were true that these laws have no bearing, why are they still in the laws of these states?

There IS a conspiracy here.

According to some polls, only 37% of Americans would be willing to vote for an atheist for president. Most people would vote for a black person, a gay man or a woman before they'd vote for an atheist.

Religious discrimination in public life: alive and well in the US despite our separation of church and state.

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:59 PM
Well, nice try, but what a lame attempt to keep your position.

The state matter has gone to the Supreme Court and has been put down unanimously as unconstitutional. While States have the right to differ with federal regulations, they don't get the right to perform unconstitutional acts in the face of Supreme Court rulings.

Concerning the silly statement that if the archaic laws aren't relevant they wouldn't be there...

Texas (unless it has been cleansed from the books in the past decade) still has on its books that if you are caught carrying wire-cutters you'll go to jail. This law was written back when the free range "Chisholm Trail" cattle drive days started clashing with the sheep-rancher let's throw up a fence days. The cattle drivers would simply cut the fences and continue on the drive. So the Texas legislature passed a law against carrying wire-cutters.

People are not going to jail in Texas for carrying wire-cutters these days.

On the books in several states - including my own - are laws that redeem "crimes of passion". If a man catches his wife in bed with another man and he kills either of them, his act is justified as a crime of passion.

We've got plenty of people going to jail in the state of Oklahoma over committing crimes of passion that this archaic law does not protect them from committing.

And people are not being required to confess a belief in God in order to you're really grasping for something to bitch about as far as I can see.

If you feel so adamant about getting these old un-used laws off the books, why don't you write the legislatures of the states that have them. Or maybe march on Washington or the state capitals. But to declare impotent laws struck down by the Supreme Court as some conspiracy against atheists is ridiculous - and really doesn't change anything. But then again, there doesn't seem to be anything that needs to be changed.

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:03 PM
That is your position, as a member of the conspiracy. Since we've come to loggerheads about this issue before I am already aware of your position and your double standards as regards atheists and religion in the US.

If a law is on the books it CAN be used. Just because it currently isn't doesn't mean it won't be in the future.

The fact that these laws are on the books are proof of discrimination. As I said, there is not a single law in the country that prevents any race, sex or Christian from holding public office, and if there were, there would be a huge public outcry until these laws were removed.

The tone of your very answer speaks of the double standard people of religion (i.e., the majority of Christians) have in this country.

You make noise that it's your right to have the ten commandments in our public buildings, and that people are discriminating against you by upholding the constitution and the bill of rights, but when the shoe is on the other foot, you make ad hominem attacks and refuse to see your own hypocrisy.

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link thats totally left field up the ball park. i think ill stick to my Roman catholic beliefs and enjoy my blood and flesh eating at my ritual meetings.

numbers can be found to backup and prove anything. 43% of the people know that.

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:08 PM
reply to post by MajorMalfunction

Well MajorMalfunction, me and you never see eye to eye, but I do agree with you on this one. It is wrong, and religion should be no where near politics. Anyone seeking to be a politician should not be denied because of their sex, race, religion, or beliefs. I mean to think people only get morals through religion is not right, I have met Atheists, Agnostics, all the way to Buddhists who were very morally ethic.

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:21 PM
The Supreme Court has already decided on such a case already and found in favor of the ahteists, I am sorry not really seeing where the issue is, these laws are impotent and unenforceable. You are ranting on basically nothing here, as to the 63% of americans who would rather vote for another minority more than an atheist, it is just common sense you are going to vote for someone who has more in common with you, sorry that is just human tendency hardly a conspiracy.

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:57 PM
conspiracy against atheists? obviously there is one. it's clear when you see certain events. for example, texas recently made reciting the state pledge of allegiance mandatory, shortly after adding "one state under god" to it.

clearly an attack on non-believers.

the demonization of anyone who wishes to remove "under god" from the pledge is another big one. it's only been there for about 50 years, it was a product of cold war paranoia and is completely unconstitutional, as it was an act of congress.

there is a conspiracy and it is a cultural one

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 02:24 PM

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction

There is not a single state in the US that prohibits Christians from holding office.

Ummm...yes there is.

As a matter of fact, it's one of the states you listed above....Tennessee.

Tennessee State Constitution, Article IX, Section 1 states that....

Whereas Ministers of the Gospel are by their profession, dedicated to God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no Minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature.

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 02:39 PM
wow, there are actually some laws I agree with?!


posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 02:53 PM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Now this particular arguement i can embrace as being a delibrate and intentional slap in the face, the action taken in Texas is discriminatory in the highest nature. And the truth be told in my personal opinion these two particular cases should find a common comprimse. i.e. Insert personal deity or lack thereof, reasonable, equitable and benifical to all sides involved as it now has become all inclusive to every individuals belief system.

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 02:59 PM

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
I have seen on this board, numerous times, accusations that there is an anti-Christian conspiracy,

anti-Christian conspiracy.
To me the term sounds like, "We have a conspiracy - the nature of the conspiracy is that their are anti-Christians"

I know there is a thead by this title - and I know what they meant, but it still reads that way to me. And in truth, as you pointed out - there are an overwhelmingly large number of "Christians" who would the few anti-christians be? A joke really, no one is against Christianity, per say - although people are probably getting tired of the pseudo Christian doctrine spread by many evangelicals (who only repeat what was told to them...people make great parrots...we quote rather quickly, and have little opinion of our own.)



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 05:49 PM
Could you even call it a conspiracy?!

Conspiracy implies it is somehow hidden from public eye, but it is not. It is blatantly out-in-the-open. We all know Bush's famous statement, for instance.

Face it, us atheists are hated all over the country and in many other places in the world.

However, MM, to be fair, in some Muslim countries Christians are still persecuted, but still not to the extent of other groups. And of course in the past the Soviets persecuted Christians and any other religious group in their country.

Regardless, the only reason we haven't been persecuted to the extent of other groups is that we don't have many identifying traits, and we don't really form communities/ghettos/etc. Jews were easily killed in Nazi Germany because they lived in ghettos, dressed a certain way, wore certain things, had cultural traits, etc.

Atheists can look like anyone else, the only thing you can go by is their lack of religious icons, but even that usually means nothing, since there are many people who believe in god but may not have religion (like agnostics), or may not be very religious in general.

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 06:43 PM

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction

You make noise that it's your right to have the ten commandments in our public buildings, and that people are discriminating against you by upholding the constitution and the bill of rights, but when the shoe is on the other foot, you make ad hominem attacks and refuse to see your own hypocrisy.

Excuse me? You just excused me of something that's not true. Want to apologize now, or save it for when you've got a Baker's dozen of these? Because I believe this is not the first time you've done this to me.

Is lying a personal trait of yours, or can I assume it necessarily comes with atheism?

Please give an accurate answer so I don't form the wrong opinion.

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 06:53 PM
reply to post by sdp333

Not the same thing -- just ministers. Not lay Christians. Though I will admit that is also discriminatory.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in