Happy Blasphemy Day

[AZMike 173]

"Yes, I am a member.

 

Here is one of those old threads:

 

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=20866#id_213050"

 

That thread link appears to be dead. So in the absence of a preserved thread, would you be kind enough to discuss how you reconcile the ideals of scouting with your own atheism?

 

 

"In NC a few years back a voter registrar informed me that in NC, you can't vote if you don't believe in God. I think that has changed since then though. But it was recent enough to be within my lifetime."

 

How would he know that? Did you have to recite the Lord's Prayer or something before he would let you vote?

 

 

 

"Does this mean that Buddhist people are atheists?"

 

"You'd have to ask a Buddhist but at least one in these threads has affirmed that Buddhism is atheistic. Crank up the ol' Vic20 and search on 'studentscout'. The internet is your friend."

 

You're sure about that, kiddo?

 

When I use "studentscout site:www.scouter.com" I got this message:

 

No results found for studentscout site:www.scouter.org

 

Of course, someone who styles himself or herself "studentscout" and says he/she is a Buddhist can claim to also be an atheist on the Internet, and who cares? Sam Harris has made the same claim. The vast majority of Buddhists would agree that it is a religion, based on my exposure to realio, trulio actual Buddhists in the U.S. and Asia, it is an EXTEMELY demanding and exacting system of spirituality, and some Buddhists do believe in a God, or at least have a system of reverence for a system of spirituality and a belief that those who achieve a state of Nirvana survive in another form (devas) and deserve reverence, and the conception of an omnipresent omniscient eternal Buddha If that's not religion, it's close enough for government work.

 

Certainly, one can pursue small-b buddhism as a not-too-taxing meditative system or philosophy of life (most college sophomores who are trying to impress co-eds with the claim that they are "spiritual, but not religious" do so), but that's not the way millions of Buddhists around the world see it.

 

"In response to your passionate rejection of the some methods that might be used to achieve the goals of eugenics, I had asked if you support socialized medicine. And you responded,

 

"Are you asking if I believe the government should provide some share of the health care for certain specified groups?"

 

To which I replied in the affirmative:

 

"An answer to that question would be OK, especially if you explain how the groups are defined and how much of a share. Or it could include government paying the cost...it doesn't have to be a government doctor or clinic."

 

And then from you...nothing."

 

It's kind of hard to answer a very nebulous question, and I sense you don't want to commit to a specific question... When I asked you to try to focus in on a question, you again say you want an answer, but also want to ME to then explain how the groups would be defined and how much of a share, or if it "could include government paying the cost, but it doesn't to be a government doctor or clinic...then you seem upset that I can't answer such a question without a tad more specificity as to WHAT THE **** YOU ARE ASKING?!?

 

So, I would say that the original goals of the social security system in this country would seem very laudable (care of widows, orphans, the aged and infirm, as administered by the government), but the growth of a bureaucracy and the desire by some to exploit the system have had a negative impact. I would support the general principle of subsidiarity in providing for those need it. I would oppose programs that are designed with the goal of killing members of populations based on their race, utility, or disability. I agree with Dr. Seuss that a person is a person, no matter how small.

 

Is that what you are looking for?

 

(This message has been edited by AZMike)

[AZMike 173]

"Well, I wasn't TALKING about constitutional rights; I was talking about special privileges. Some Christians whine when e.g. a city council has to stop opening meetings with the lord's prayer."

 

Some atheists whine about city councils opening a meeting with any prayer. I have no problem with either an interfaith prayer, or preferably, rotating chaplaincy so different faiths can begin the invocation.

 

"What do you think about US states that say atheists can't hold public office, or Indonesia imprisoning people for stating they're atheists?"

 

Which U.S. states have laws against atheists holding public office?

 

Not state laws, but their state constitutions:

 

Arkansas

"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

"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"

Mississippi

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state"

North Carolina

"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God"

Pennsylvania

"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

"No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution"

Tennessee

"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

"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"

 

Huh! I didn't know that. My first reaction is, "Cool!" but understand that you might not share my enthusiasm. But according to you, these are no longer have the force of law, so what's the beef?

 

I like the Texan one, actually - it parallels the BSA policy.

 

There are probably some practical reasons those statements were put in place in the state constitutions, though - and it wasn't about intolerance...

 

 

"So you don't care about injustice outside the US?"

 

I recognize that I have little power to change things overseas, and that there are more important and pressing issues overseas (genocide, epidemics, infanticide, forced abortions, slave labor camps, the suppression of Christianity, etc.) that concern me more. If people of my own faith are being suppressed, is it logical that I would expend what little personal influence I have overseas to protect a subculture that stands in opposition to what I (and he vast majority of people) believe? I don't wish them harm, but given that they will probably not support my right to the public display of my religion, why should I support their belief that they should be able to dis a religion in public?

 

If the atheists are so butt-hurt over the display of a Nativity scene in the public square at Christmas-time, why should they (or you, Merle ) be surprised that I don't choose to spend my time and money supporting them when they get a beat-down in a country that has a very, very, VERY, different view about the place of religion in the public square.

 

There also appears to be a kind of terminal stupidity in those rare atheists who, living in a predominately Muslim country, decide to make such statements on their Facebook page: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/indonesia/9027145/Atheist-Indonesian-in-protective-custody-after-being-beaten-by-mob.html I'm not saying it's right, he may have been courageous in his own way, or maybe he was so unsophisticated about IP addresses that he didn't think his statements could be traced on the Internet, but it was kind of a stupid thing to do in that culture.

 

[packsaddle 753]

Yeah, bad link. This one should work.

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=20866

 

Your search is within the forum itself. On this page that you are reading right now, scroll up to the 'Reply' button and look just below it for another button that reads, 'search'. I just did it and studentscout is there, every last post. So yes, I'm fairly certain of it.

 

As for the registrar, I was questioned about my religious affiliation when I declined to be forced to read from a Bible to demonstrate my literacy. I think my words were something along the lines of, 'My faith is personal and I'm not going to have it examined by you' or something like that. It degenerated from there but eventually a 'higher authority' rightly saw their error and blinked. I went on to cast my vote for Richard Nixon. I blame myself.

 

As for what you think you know about me...I will not relieve you of your ignorance. Except, of course, to inform you of it. You don't know me from Adam's dog and yet you think you know my thoughts. Most of the time I'll take the opportunity to confront prejudice but when it's directed at me, I'm good with it. You just go ahead and continue to think I'm an atheist. No problem.

In answer to your question, I have no problem reconciling my membership. There's nothing to reconcile.

By the way, BrentAllen made a similar attempt a while back. Once you figure out how to do a proper search, you can read about that as well.

 

You know, Social Security was one thing I didn't list in that original post where I posed the question. And it's the ONLY thing you mentioned just now. I have objections to Social Security but they're not related to health care. So let's set that aside.

 

You are the one who suggested the 'nebulous' question which I have agreed to ask. I'll repeat it for you: (I am) "asking if" (you) "believe the government should provide some share of the health care for certain specified groups?"

The rest was an attempt to be more specific. I asked for you to specify 'how much' not just "some share" and I asked for more specificity about the groups as well.

YOU are being evasive.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

AZMike writes:

"Well, I wasn't TALKING about constitutional rights; I was talking about special privileges. Some Christians whine when e.g. a city council has to stop opening meetings with the lord's prayer."

 

Some atheists whine about city councils opening a meeting with any prayer.

 

What's that got to do with Christian special privilege? Having the city council open each meeting with a prayer from your religion is a special privilege (and illegal), not a right.

 

Huh! I didn't know that. My first reaction is, "Cool!" but understand that you might not share my enthusiasm.

 

Why? Would you say the same thing if a state constitution prohibited Jews, or Catholics from office? If not, why the difference?

 

There are probably some practical reasons those statements were put in place in the state constitutions, though - and it wasn't about intolerance...

 

Well, now you're just making up "reasons". Propose a "practical" reason. And yes, it was about intolerance.

 

If people of my own faith are being suppressed, is it logical that I would expend what little personal influence I have overseas to protect a subculture that stands in opposition to what I (and he vast majority of people) believe?

 

If you don't defend EVERYONE'S religious freedom, you won't be able to keep yours very long. You might want to recall Martin Niemller.

 

 

[AZMike 173]

"What's that got to do with Christian special privilege? Having the city council open each meeting with a prayer from your religion is a special privilege (and illegal), not a right. "

 

No, it's not illegal, nor is it a special privilege. Every session of Congress opens like that. America is still largely a country marked by religious observance, If your argument is correct, then all the sessions and all the legislation passed is illegal and presumably invalid.

 

As American culture is largely religious and believes in God (lack of belief in God is about 7%, per Gallup) it seems appropriate that the vibrancy and diversity of religious expression is celebrated in our public observances. As a small subculture of Americans do not believe in God, and an even smaller number of those can be presumed to even care about such issues - many atheists just don't believe in God but don't concern themselves with the political concerns of what has been called the "High Church" atheists - it would seem that the atheist demand that the majority of Americans cease the public display of respect for religion is itself, by definition, a special pleading.

 

 

"Why? Would you say the same thing if a state constitution prohibited Jews, or Catholics from office? If not, why the difference?"

 

If a state constitution banned Jews, or Catholics, or Mormons, or Buddhists, or even Scientologists from public office, it would effect me, as the state control of religion is both unconstitutional and a threat to my own free practice of my religion.

 

But, as most atheists claim, atheism is not a religion. It's a negative. When criticized for the logical historical consequences of atheism - genocide, eugenics, repression - they try to wiggle out from under the responsibility for their ideology by claiming, "oh, no - you can't blame me for all THAT - you see, atheism is just a lack of belief in the supernatural. That's all it is."

 

 

So, fine. It's just a negation, or a nothingness, by most atheists' own admission. You CAN discriminate against a nihilistic philosophy, just as the government can -or should - be able to discriminate against a communist or a Nazi holding public office. One should not discriminate against a religious belief in the political arena. If we accept that atheism is a philosophy or a world-view, one can quite acceptably and reasonably discriminate against those, as we discriminate against those who hold the belief that fascism is correct, or Marxism is correct. Discrimination in the broadest sense means to hold that one thing is acceptable and another is not. Belief in a negation is not properly speaking, covered by the "free practice of religion" clause.

 

In practice, though, I would agree that a requirement that someone profess a belief in God probably isn't a good idea, and that even those who hold extreme political and philosophical positions should be able to run for public office. The marketplace of ideas, and the natural revulsion most people feel towards atheists will tend to eliminate most from serious consideration as political candidates, for the reasons set forth below.

 

 

 

"There are probably some practical reasons those statements were put in place in the state constitutions, though - and it wasn't about intolerance... "

 

"Well, now you're just making up "reasons". Propose a "practical" reason. And yes, it was about intolerance. "

 

The practical reasons most atheists find it difficult to get elected to office, outside of a few insular secular enclaves, is that the vast majority of Americans just don't trust them - as the atheists' own research shows. Read this: http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/11/30/religious-people-do-not-believe-in-atheists-study/ - according to an atheist's own research, atheists are ranked below rapists by most respondents in terms of moral behavior.

 

Yes, the average atheist will have a hard time getting elected to public office if his beliefs are known to the electorate. (And I feel comfortable saying "his," as the majority of atheists are men, and white men at that, and very geeky white men on top of it all, based on the atheist convention I witnessed. Atheist forums regularly bemoan the lack of attendance by people of color, who generally have better things to do with their time, at the various "skeptic" conventions they hold, and the sexist treatment women receive at most atheist and skeptic conventions is so heinous that more and more women opt out - this is a continuing topic of discussion on atheist forums, BTW.) A crack-addicted drag queen on probation who failed anger-management classes but who still goes to church every now and then has a better chance of being elected than a sober and intelligent atheist.

 

Why?

 

Because people realize that atheist "morality" is inherently squishy and malleable. While we all fall short of the ideal, most people accept that there is an objective morality, and that requires a source - something more than societally-accepted conventions or forms of behavior that natural selection has created to preserve the species and allow it to "flourish," in Sam Harris' hackneyed phrasing. The majority of people do not trust atheists, almost instinctively.

 

That's not to say you are all bad people, or even that a majority of you are. Many atheists are decent people. But to the extent they are seen as "good" people, it is because they model their behavior on religious norms, even as they deny the source of that morality.

 

People also don't trust the ungrateful, incidentally.

 

And, because most sensible people are realists, they don't trust people who have nothing to lose if they act immorally and don't get caught: http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/10/belief-in-hell-makes-people-act-better-h I don't share that particular viewpoint, but many sensible people do.

 

 

 

"If you don't defend EVERYONE'S religious freedom, you won't be able to keep yours very long. You might want to recall Martin Niemller."

 

Except, atheism is not a religion. The Constitution does not say, "the free practice of religion, or lack thereof."

 

Priorities, Merlyn, priorities. It's disingenuous for atheists to argue that the religious must protect the atheist's freedom when the atheist does not act to protect the religious. In such an instance, the atheist is sitting in Freedom's lap in order to slap her in the face.

 

I also note that my own religious freedoms ARE being impinged, even as atheists grow ever more strident in the marketplace of ideas. I haven't heard any of them opposing the HHS mandate on my behalf. But apparently, they expect me to travel to Pakistan to defend some numbskull who posted a philosophically naive idea on Facebook.

 

I do indeed recall Pastor Niemller, who supported Ho Chi Minh and won the Lenin Peace Prize. As a model for righteous behavior from the Confessional Church, I would rather favor Pastor Bonhoeffer, thanks very much.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

AZMike writes:

No, it's not illegal, nor is it a special privilege.

 

Check out County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1989). And, since no other religion was allowed to offer prayers, yes, it IS a special privilege.

 

"Why? Would you say the same thing if a state constitution prohibited Jews, or Catholics from office? If not, why the difference?"

 

If a state constitution banned Jews, or Catholics, or Mormons, or Buddhists, or even Scientologists from public office, it would effect me, as the state control of religion is both unconstitutional and a threat to my own free practice of my religion.

 

Atheism is no different. That would also be state control of religion.

 

But, as most atheists claim, atheism is not a religion. It's a negative.

 

It isn't a religion, but it's still covered by the first amendment. Trinitarianism isn't a religion, but that's covered. Polytheism isn't a religion (it's a tenet of some religions), but that's covered, too.

 

When criticized for the logical historical consequences of atheism - genocide, eugenics, repression

 

Well, I'll just call you a bigot and leave it at that.

 

You CAN discriminate against a nihilistic philosophy,

 

Under US law, discriminating against atheists (because they're atheists) is religious discrimination. Read Torcaso, read Welsh v. United States, read Kaufman v. McCaughtry.

 

The practical reasons most atheists find it difficult to get elected to office, outside of a few insular secular enclaves, is that the vast majority of Americans just don't trust them

 

That's no reason to make it a law; I'm sure a lot of religious minorities have a hard time getting elected, but that's no reason to make it illegal for them to run.

 

Because people realize that atheist "morality" is inherently squishy and malleable.

 

I'd say it's because superstitious people demonize atheists -- like I said, it's plain old bigotry.

 

"If you don't defend EVERYONE'S religious freedom, you won't be able to keep yours very long. You might want to recall Martin Niemller."

 

Except, atheism is not a religion. The Constitution does not say, "the free practice of religion, or lack thereof."

 

It doesn't say "the free practice of religion", either. Guess that means you can be stopped from practicing your religion, eh?

 

Priorities, Merlyn, priorities. It's disingenuous for atheists to argue that the religious must protect the atheist's freedom when the atheist does not act to protect the religious.

 

Straw man; plenty of atheists defend religious freedom, including me. You just seem to make excuses to not bother.

 

I also note that my own religious freedoms ARE being impinged, even as atheists grow ever more strident in the marketplace of ideas. I haven't heard any of them opposing the HHS mandate on my behalf. But apparently, they expect me to travel to Pakistan to defend some numbskull who posted a philosophically naive idea on Facebook.

 

Well, the general public doesn't appear convinced that the HHS mandate infringes on religious freedom, since the health choices are up to the individual. Are you against forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to cover blood transfusions?

 

And no, you don't have to travel to Pakistan, but as in every similar case of someone being held by a faraway government, you can sign petitions and urge your own government to put pressure on the government. And, of course, if Pakistan can get away with imprisoning atheists, maybe next time it'll be Christians. Will you bother to do anything then?

[Peregrinator 85]

Via the 14th amendment, it applies to all state/county/city/etc offices as well.

 

14th Amendment ... never ratified and, even if it were, rotten from top to bottom.

 

And discrimination based on religious bigotry IS a bad thing.

 

"Bigotry" is a charged word, implying hatred and intolerance. Discrimination based on religion is not necessarily bigotry. If I discriminate against atheists it is because I don't believe they are good moral role models, not because I hate them or don't tolerate them.

[skeptic 1050]

"Under US law, discriminating against atheists (because they're atheists) is religious discrimination. Read Torcaso, read Welsh v. United States, read Kaufman v. McCaughtry."

 

So, if it is religious discrimination, as per the above, then it must have a religious aspect. Otherwise, it could not be discrimination; would you agree? If not, then the above determination would appear to be erroneous. If though, it is judged to be accurate by the court, then "atheism" does have a religious connotation, even if only peripherally; much like the BSA is peripherally religious (but not a religion). Now how does that reflect on the astute judgement of Mr. Jones in the San Diego cases?

 

Just wonder how far we can stretch things in either front?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Peregrinator writes:

Via the 14th amendment, it applies to all state/county/city/etc offices as well.

 

14th Amendment ... never ratified and, even if it were, rotten from top to bottom.

 

What's "rotten" about "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

And discrimination based on religious bigotry IS a bad thing.

 

"Bigotry" is a charged word, implying hatred and intolerance.

 

Well, that's how I'd describe states that exclude people from office due to their religious views; I'd say that if they prohibited Jews or Catholics from office, too.

 

Discrimination based on religion is not necessarily bigotry. If I discriminate against atheists it is because I don't believe they are good moral role models, not because I hate them or don't tolerate them.

 

You can use the same rationale against Jews, Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, etc. And I'll still call you a bigot.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

skeptic writes:

So, if it is religious discrimination, as per the above, then it must have a religious aspect. Otherwise, it could not be discrimination; would you agree?

 

Atheism is rejection of the creed "god exists", so yes.

 

If not, then the above determination would appear to be erroneous. If though, it is judged to be accurate by the court, then "atheism" does have a religious connotation, even if only peripherally; much like the BSA is peripherally religious (but not a religion). Now how does that reflect on the astute judgement of Mr. Jones in the San Diego cases?

 

No change there; the city leased public land that gives some people inferior access based on religion, sexual orientation, and age+sex.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I'm sure I prefer their version to your funhouse mirror version, SeattlePioneer.

[skeptic 1050]

"No change there; the city leased public land that gives some people inferior access based on religion, sexual orientation, and age+sex."

 

But, if the plaintiff, peripherally is also religious, then what does that do to their complaint in the first place? Just seems to me that it considerably weakens their claims of discrimination by a religious group, as they too could be judged as discriminating against the group.

 

I realize that this is a stretch, but the decision already made by Judge Jones is pretty much stretched to the max as well, or so it seems to me.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

That makes no sense; the plaintiffs aren't controlling access to public property and excluding the BSA, the BSA is excluding the plaintiffs.

 

Now, if an atheist group had a similar lease on a public park, and this atheist group excluded members of the BSA because of the BSA's exclusion of atheists, you'd have a situation like that. But that's not the case.

[AZMike 173]

"Check out County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1989). And, since no other religion was allowed to offer prayers, yes, it IS a special privilege. "

 

If no other religion was allowed to offer prayers, in that specific case, sure. The use of public prayer in other circumstances I described, no problem.

 

 

Merlyn": "Atheism is no different. That would also be state control of religion."

 

So, in your opinion, atheism is a religion?

 

 

Merlyn: "It isn't a religion, but it's still covered by the first amendment. Trinitarianism isn't a religion, but that's covered. Polytheism isn't a religion (it's a tenet of some religions), but that's covered, too.

 

The generic religious tenets held by some religions (Trinitarianism or polytheism) are included in the free exercise of religion clause. The 7th Circuit decision seems to have held the belief that atheism is a religion, or should be granted the rights afforded to a religion. Except when it doesn't want to be seen as a religion. Or it does.

 

 

"Under US law, discriminating against atheists (because they're atheists) is religious discrimination. Read Torcaso, read Welsh v. United States, read Kaufman v. McCaughtry."

 

Welsh v. U.S. concerned a conscientious objector who had no religious beliefs, and SCOTUS decided in his favor, which was appropriate. Kaufman v. McCaughtry (which was 7th Circuit decision, not SCOTUS) concerned whether atheist prisoners had the same right to meet as members of religious groups, and whether the atheist defendant had the right to possess homosexual sadomasochistic pornography, " including but not limited to flagellation, bondage, brutality to or mutilation or physical torture of a human being, which illustrates the high moral character of the atheist in question. The 7th Circuit court decision in this was memorably screwy, especially as the defendant himself said atheism is the antithesis of religion. It would have made more sense as part of the right to peacefully assemble or free speech. If atheism is the functional equivalent of religion, that also opens a whole hornet's nest as to whether atheist arguments could ever be allowed to be expressed in state-funded schools...Are you sure you want to go there?

 

In Torcaso v. Watkins, SCOTUS certainly recognized that an atheist cannot be compelled to take a religious oath to be a notary public, which is a type of public office, which seems fair, although again, it suggested that explicitly atheistic (although not scientific) comments could be seen as expressions of religious belief. If so, it would be appropriate to prohibit the teaching of any atheist viewpoint in public schools and universities, under the 1st Amendment.

 

As I said, I don't have an issue with atheists being allowed to hold office if that is the will of the electorate, and the marketplace of ideas is the best defense against such people.

 

"That's no reason to make it a law; I'm sure a lot of religious minorities have a hard time getting elected, but that's no reason to make it illegal for them to run."

 

Nor is it. I did not say it should be a law (the opposite in fact). And religious minorities hold public office all over the U.S. Catholics are a religious minority in the U.S., although the largest individual denomination of Christians, and barring Biden being dumped for Hillary, a Catholic will be the Vice-President next year. As I said, it is instead a perception problem that exists for an atheist who wants to seek public office - the majority of people don't trust them (in fact, they trust them less than religious minorities - see the link I provided), and most people have seen the results of atheism in the 20th and 21st centuries. There have been 28 atheist countries in the world, with 89 atheists ruling those countries. More than half of those (58%) engaged in democidal acts (i.e., mass genocide against their own citizens). If you also include the death figures for those countries they forcibly invaded and annexed, the body count for atheist leaders stands somewhere between 148 million and 260 million, depending on whose stats you use (as atheist leaders are pretty efficient at eliminating pesky historians).

 

Thus, between 1917 and 2007, the 52 atheist political leaders who held office during that time are responsible for (using a conservative estimate) about 148 million dead, which is three times more than every human being killed in war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire 20th century combined.

 

So the historical record for atheist politicians, since their rise to power, is 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than the highest estimates for what is cited by atheists as the worst misdeed of Christianity, the Spanish Inquisition, even though atheists have had less than 1/20th of the number of opportunities to commit such crimes during the last millennium.

 

So if there is a 58% chance that an atheist who becomes a political leader will murder a large portion of the population that is entrusted to his care, and despite that fact than not 1 in 1000 religious leaders have committed atrocities on such a scale, can you blame people if they are not inclined to view the rise of an atheist to a position of power with anything less than dread?

 

 

"I'd say it's because superstitious people demonize atheists -- like I said, it's plain old bigotry."

 

No. People are allowed to dislike people whom they distrust for good cause. You can call that bigotry if you like, I would call it proper discernment.

 

 

"If you don't defend EVERYONE'S religious freedom, you won't be able to keep yours very long. You might want to recall Martin Niemller."

 

Except, atheism is not a religion. Or is it? I'll defend anyone's freedom of religion, within reason. I won't defend the political rights of someone who denigrates religion, absent special circumstances.

 

It doesn't say "the free practice of religion", either. Guess that means you can be stopped from practicing your religion, eh?

 

No, it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." At best, Justice Hugo Black made the argument that atheism was religion, except when it wasn't. Go figure.

 

 

 

Straw man; plenty of atheists defend religious freedom, including me. You just seem to make excuses to not bother.

 

Right...

 

 

 

Well, the general public doesn't appear convinced that the HHS mandate infringes on religious freedom, since the health choices are up to the individual. Are you against forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to cover blood transfusions?

 

Many people do believe the HHS mandate infringes on religious freedom, as the health choices are NOT up the individual but are mandated by the federal government. Yes, I would be against forcing a JW to cover the cost of transfusion in a health-care plan for his employees, that he pays for, as long as the employee knows up front the coverage provided. The potential employee can take this into account when deciding for whom to work, as (until recently), the type of coverage provided was one of many factors employers could use to attract potential employees. If you don't want you or your family to be covered by such a plan, don't work for that guy. If you think the government has no place in your bedroom, you shouldn't expect the government (that is, the taxpayer and the employer) to pay for your contraceptives and abortion drugs. In point of fact, no one will ever be denied a blood transfusion if they need one, as ERs will provide it, for free if you can't afford it (and if you give blood transfusions regularly, you get a credit if you need one...). And no one will die because they are denied an abortifacient (quite the opposite, in fact) or an oral contraceptive because they are in conflict with a religious employer's beliefs.

 

 

 

"And no, you don't have to travel to Pakistan, but as in every similar case of someone being held by a faraway government, you can sign petitions and urge your own government to put pressure on the government. And, of course, if Pakistan can get away with imprisoning atheists, maybe next time it'll be Christians. Will you bother to do anything then?"

 

If its Christians, you betcha. BTW, Have you taken any action to prevent the discrimination against the Church in China? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Iran? Or North Korea? Or Berkeley? What have you done? Did write a letter to your editor about the atheist P.Z. Myers profaning the Eucharist? Did you raise your voice in protest to the "artwork" that depicted a crucifix submerged in urine? No? Then why should I spend time protesting blasphemy laws that impact you?

 

In a world filled with every manner of evil - the sexual trafficking in children, poverty, forced starvation and relocation of populations, ethnic cleansing, child pornography - the fears of atheists rank fairly low for most people.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

AZMike writes:

"Check out County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1989). And, since no other religion was allowed to offer prayers, yes, it IS a special privilege. "

 

If no other religion was allowed to offer prayers, in that specific case, sure.

 

That's what I've been SAYING.

 

The use of public prayer in other circumstances I described, no problem.

 

I disagree.

 

Merlyn": "Atheism is no different. That would also be state control of religion."

 

So, in your opinion, atheism is a religion?

 

No, but lots of things that aren't "religions" are covered. Trintarianism isn't a religion, it's a tenet of some Christian religions, but discrimination for or against someone for being a trinitarian would be religious discrimination. Same for polytheism. Same for atheism.

 

Merlyn: "It isn't a religion, but it's still covered by the first amendment. Trinitarianism isn't a religion, but that's covered. Polytheism isn't a religion (it's a tenet of some religions), but that's covered, too.

 

The generic religious tenets held by some religions (Trinitarianism or polytheism) are included in the free exercise of religion clause. The 7th Circuit decision seems to have held the belief that atheism is a religion, or should be granted the rights afforded to a religion. Except when it doesn't want to be seen as a religion. Or it does.

 

Nope.

 

There are a lot of religious creeds; discriminating against someone for holding or NOT holding a particular religious creed is religious discrimination. Atheists don't hold to the creed "god exists."

 

"Under US law, discriminating against atheists (because they're atheists) is religious discrimination. Read Torcaso, read Welsh v. United States, read Kaufman v. McCaughtry."

 

Welsh v. U.S. concerned a conscientious objector who had no religious beliefs, and SCOTUS decided in his favor, which was appropriate.

 

But the legislation said ONLY RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS were valid for a conscientious objector, and Welsh didn't have religious objections. So, using your logic, how could the court decide in his favor? Why is it appropriate?

 

Kaufman v. McCaughtry (which was 7th Circuit decision, not SCOTUS) concerned whether atheist prisoners had the same right to meet as members of religious groups, and whether the atheist defendant had the right to possess homosexual sadomasochistic pornography, " including but not limited to flagellation, bondage, brutality to or mutilation or physical torture of a human being, which illustrates the high moral character of the atheist in question. The 7th Circuit court decision in this was memorably screwy, especially as the defendant himself said atheism is the antithesis of religion. It would have made more sense as part of the right to peacefully assemble or free speech. If atheism is the functional equivalent of religion, that also opens a whole hornet's nest as to whether atheist arguments could ever be allowed to be expressed in state-funded schools...Are you sure you want to go there?

 

Oh, yes. Government run schools shouldn't advocate atheism any more than they should advocate Christianity.

 

In Torcaso v. Watkins, SCOTUS certainly recognized that an atheist cannot be compelled to take a religious oath to be a notary public, which is a type of public office, which seems fair, although again, it suggested that explicitly atheistic (although not scientific) comments could be seen as expressions of religious belief. If so, it would be appropriate to prohibit the teaching of any atheist viewpoint in public schools and universities, under the 1st Amendment.

 

I agree. You seem to think you've discovered something new or something.

 

As I said, I don't have an issue with atheists being allowed to hold office if that is the will of the electorate, and the marketplace of ideas is the best defense against such people.

 

Well, that doesn't explain your earlier enthusiasm for laws prohibiting atheists from holding office.

 

"That's no reason to make it a law; I'm sure a lot of religious minorities have a hard time getting elected, but that's no reason to make it illegal for them to run."

 

Nor is it. I did not say it should be a law (the opposite in fact).

 

You seemed to approve of state constitutions preventing atheists from holding office, which makes it illegal for them to run.

 

And religious minorities hold public office all over the U.S. Catholics are a religious minority in the U.S., although the largest individual denomination of Christians, and barring Biden being dumped for Hillary, a Catholic will be the Vice-President next year. As I said, it is instead a perception problem that exists for an atheist who wants to seek public office - the majority of people don't trust them (in fact, they trust them less than religious minorities - see the link I provided), and most people have seen the results of atheism in the 20th and 21st centuries. There have been 28 atheist countries in the world, with 89 atheists ruling those countries. More than half of those (58%) engaged in democidal acts (i.e., mass genocide against their own citizens). If you also include the death figures for those countries they forcibly invaded and annexed, the body count for atheist leaders stands somewhere between 148 million and 260 million, depending on whose stats you use (as atheist leaders are pretty efficient at eliminating pesky historians).

 

Thus, between 1917 and 2007, the 52 atheist political leaders who held office during that time are responsible for (using a conservative estimate) about 148 million dead, which is three times more than every human being killed in war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire 20th century combined.

 

Did you have a point? Are you afraid the Prime Minister of Australia will start executing people?

 

So the historical record for atheist politicians, since their rise to power, is 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than the highest estimates for what is cited by atheists as the worst misdeed of Christianity, the Spanish Inquisition, even though atheists have had less than 1/20th of the number of opportunities to commit such crimes during the last millennium.

 

Cry me a river.

 

So if there is a 58% chance that an atheist who becomes a political leader will murder a large portion of the population

 

There's a 100% chance you are ignorant of probability.

 

that is entrusted to his care, and despite that fact than not 1 in 1000 religious leaders have committed atrocities on such a scale, can you blame people if they are not inclined to view the rise of an atheist to a position of power with anything less than dread?

 

Like the people of Australia, Great Britain, France? They've all had (or have) atheist Prime Ministers.

 

"I'd say it's because superstitious people demonize atheists -- like I said, it's plain old bigotry."

 

No. People are allowed to dislike people whom they distrust for good cause. You can call that bigotry if you like, I would call it proper discernment.

 

Nah, it's bigotry.

 

"If you don't defend EVERYONE'S religious freedom, you won't be able to keep yours very long. You might want to recall Martin Niemller."

 

Except, atheism is not a religion. Or is it?

 

It's not a religion, but if you can't see that having the freedom to be an atheist falls under religious freedom, I can't help you.

 

I'll defend anyone's freedom of religion, within reason. I won't defend the political rights of someone who denigrates religion, absent special circumstances.

 

So, I assume you're OK with the 11-year-old girl with Down's syndrome who was beaten and imprisoned yesterday in Pakistan for burning some pages of a book? That denegrates religion. There's some speculation her village might be burned down in retaliation.

 

It doesn't say "the free practice of religion", either. Guess that means you can be stopped from practicing your religion, eh?

 

No, it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." At best, Justice Hugo Black made the argument that atheism was religion, except when it wasn't. Go figure.

 

Atheism is covered by the first amendment. Why is that hard for you to understand?