Facts About Atheists according to Pew

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

So, let me get this clear. Both religious individuals or groups and non-religious individuals or groups have the same rights. When the religious groups or persons "publicly" express their views, they are trespassing on the rights of the non-religous.

 

Nope, you haven't gotten this straight.

 

So, the non-religious rights take precedence over the religious rights?

 

Nope, you haven't gotten this straight.

 

I still have a hard time understanding how these individuals are "harmed" by simply seeing or hearing something with a religious significance or symbolism.

 

That isn't the issue, since atheists see and hear a lot of things with religious significance or symbolism, like churches, people wearing crucifixes, people praying, etc. without any lawsuits at all.

 

But if you think reeeeeeeeal hard, you might discern why some displays of religion trigger lawsuits (which the atheists often win, which means the law was on their side) and your simplistic examples.

 

Seems that they do not have much self assurance if these things have such emotional impact on them.

 

That's not the issue at all.

 

It also appears that there really is NOT equality here, since the religious element MUST give up their rights to the non-religious in so many cases.

 

Nope, nobody has given up rights. In some cases, Christians lose special privileges that they aren't entitled to, but that's not losing rights at all.

 

The scale of justice or whatever is out of balance from my perspective.

 

Let's see, in Santa Monica, for example, Christians got to put up displays on public property for 60 years. When atheists complained, allocation was made into a lottery system, and atheists happen to win a number of slots (if I recall, Christians got something like three slots). The 60 years part was the unbalanced part.

 

Now, if the non-religious wanted to be included in these monuments or memorials and they were NOT given the option, then they would have a real issue of bias.

 

That's how atheists finally got a monument put on public property. For the first time ever.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/06/28/...nt-to-atheism/

 

But, in most cases, they do not seem to actually want to be included, they simply do not want the religious to express their rightful voice in any manner that they may have to see or hear.

 

Nope, but you don't understand the issues anyway.

[AZMike 173]

Merlyn, if you are going to respond by saying "you haven't gotten this straight" and "you don't understand the issues," why are you even posting?

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

AZMike, are you deliberately ignoring my response to you? Skeptic doesn't deserve more of a reply, because his questions are disingenuous.

[skeptic 997]

So, let me get this clear. Both religious individuals or groups and non-religious individuals or groups have the same rights. When the religious groups or persons "publicly" express their views, they are trespassing on the rights of the non-religous.

 

Nope, you haven't gotten this straight.

 

So, the non-religious rights take precedence over the religious rights?

 

Nope, you haven't gotten this straight.

 

I still have a hard time understanding how these individuals are "harmed" by simply seeing or hearing something with a religious significance or symbolism.

 

That isn't the issue, since atheists see and hear a lot of things with religious significance or symbolism, like churches, people wearing crucifixes, people praying, etc. without any lawsuits at all.

 

But if you think reeeeeeeeal hard, you might discern why some displays of religion trigger lawsuits (which the atheists often win, which means the law was on their side) and your simplistic examples.

 

Seems that they do not have much self assurance if these things have such emotional impact on them.

 

That's not the issue at all.

 

It also appears that there really is NOT equality here, since the religious element MUST give up their rights to the non-religious in so many cases.

 

Nope, nobody has given up rights. In some cases, Christians lose special privileges that they aren't entitled to, but that's not losing rights at all.

 

The scale of justice or whatever is out of balance from my perspective.

 

Let's see, in Santa Monica, for example, Christians got to put up displays on public property for 60 years. When atheists complained, allocation was made into a lottery system, and atheists happen to win a number of slots (if I recall, Christians got something like three slots). The 60 years part was the unbalanced part.

 

Now, if the non-religious wanted to be included in these monuments or memorials and they were NOT given the option, then they would have a real issue of bias.

 

That's how atheists finally got a monument put on public property. For the first time ever.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/06/28/...nt-to-atheism/

 

But, in most cases, they do not seem to actually want to be included, they simply do not want the religious to express their rightful voice in any manner that they may have to see or hear.

 

Nope, but you don't understand the issues anyway.

You are right; I do not understand because I do not see anybody being harmed most of the time, other than feelings hurt due to thin skin and emotional weakness. Don't pay any attention to something that is against your belief. Simply ignore them or put your own interpretation in the mix; but forcing others NOT to have free speech by threats and litigation is simply abusing their rights at the expense of yours. JMO of course, as I am not hurt either way. We will never reach a point of even near agreement, and I am fine with that. You have a right to your opinion, even if I see it as biased, skewed, and unreasonable. Enjoy.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

You are right; I do not understand because I do not see anybody being harmed most of the time, other than feelings hurt due to thin skin and emotional weakness.

 

You mean the way Christians whine when they lose their special privileges? The way you complain when atheists sue for their rights?

 

Don't pay any attention to something that is against your belief. Simply ignore them or put your own interpretation in the mix; but forcing others NOT to have free speech by threats and litigation is simply abusing their rights at the expense of yours.

 

I disagree. Looks like you've got your feelings hurt due to your emotional weakness.

 

JMO of course, as I am not hurt either way. We will never reach a point of even near agreement, and I am fine with that. You have a right to your opinion, even if I see it as biased, skewed, and unreasonable. Enjoy.

 

Yep, how dare atheists try to be treated equally.

 

 

 

 

 

[King Ding Dong 540]

Well AZMike, your examples of Christian business owners being told by the state they have to provide services for LGBT weddings is simply a matter of businesses being considered public accommodations. They can't refuse their services any more than someone whose religion objects to mixed-race marriages, or mixed-religion marriages could refuse to do business with couples of mixed races or mixed religions. You can argue against public accommodation laws, but I'm in favor of them.

 

As for Catholic adoption agencies, if they take state money they have to follow the rules for accepting that money. They could still discriminate if they want to forgo state money and be an entirely private adoption organization, but they decided not to do that. I see nothing wrong with the state having requirements for their adoption funding.

 

For atheists suing the IRS, all nonprofits, including churches, are prevented from endorsing political candidates. Some churches have been violating this law, so the atheists sued the IRS to make them apply the law. Of course, if you want to be completely private and not get nonprofit status, churches can endorse political candidates.

 

About the HHS fight, it's not atheists doing that.

 

Military chaplains aren't supposed to insult soldiers in military service, and writing the old "no atheists in foxholes" does just that. Such insults are an actual violation of military regs.

 

The Santa Monica situation was where Christians had preferential treatment for 60 years; when the city had to change it to a fair system, atheists got most of the spots. So now you're complaining about a level playing field.

 

And sorry, you can't take public school students to a church to see them put on "A Charlie Brown Christmas" as a play. Besides the religious problems, the church was violating the law because the owners of the rights weren't allowing it to be performed anywhere as a live play:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/11/27/a-separate-legal-issue-about-that-church-putting-on-a-charlie-brown-christmas/

 

And the atheist monument is in a public forum. Again, atheists are being treated the same as anyone else. Got a problem with that?

 

For student clubs, that's only if the groups want official recognition (which often includes some funding). If they want to be an entirely private group without official recognition, they can do that. If you think it's a violation, file a lawsuit.

 

Am. Atheists sued over the 9/11 cross because not just Christians were killed in the attack.

 

"Government officials have misused their powers to deny business licenses to those whose religious beliefs differ from those held by the government officials on LGBT marriage:"

 

Well, now you can't read. The mayor of Boston said that, and he was reprimanded by the ACLU, and NO business license was ever denied:

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/07/boston-mayor-backs-off-chick-fil-a-aclu-warns-politicians-to-avoid-threats/

Also, where's the atheist in this story? The mayor of Boston isn't an atheist.

 

As for the Camp Pendleton cross, the US isn't a Christians-only country, there's no reason to have government memorials just for Christians.

 

And same for firesighters.

 

As for city seals, no, you do not have a "right" to have your religious symbols on city seals.

 

"I could go on and on, and on, but the fact is that atheists, and those pursuing secular goals, have attempted to impinge on the religious rights of Americans"

 

Sorry, what you call "rights" are not what I call rights. Some of what you are complaining about above are actually Christians losing special privileges and atheists finally being treated equally, such as the Santa Monica story or the atheist monument (which was put up in response to a ten commandments monument on the same public property).

Skeptic, just one example of bias.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/pastafarian-holiday-tree-rejected

[Huzzar 39]

Well AZMike, your examples of Christian business owners being told by the state they have to provide services for LGBT weddings is simply a matter of businesses being considered public accommodations. They can't refuse their services any more than someone whose religion objects to mixed-race marriages, or mixed-religion marriages could refuse to do business with couples of mixed races or mixed religions. You can argue against public accommodation laws, but I'm in favor of them.

 

As for Catholic adoption agencies, if they take state money they have to follow the rules for accepting that money. They could still discriminate if they want to forgo state money and be an entirely private adoption organization, but they decided not to do that. I see nothing wrong with the state having requirements for their adoption funding.

 

For atheists suing the IRS, all nonprofits, including churches, are prevented from endorsing political candidates. Some churches have been violating this law, so the atheists sued the IRS to make them apply the law. Of course, if you want to be completely private and not get nonprofit status, churches can endorse political candidates.

 

About the HHS fight, it's not atheists doing that.

 

Military chaplains aren't supposed to insult soldiers in military service, and writing the old "no atheists in foxholes" does just that. Such insults are an actual violation of military regs.

 

The Santa Monica situation was where Christians had preferential treatment for 60 years; when the city had to change it to a fair system, atheists got most of the spots. So now you're complaining about a level playing field.

 

And sorry, you can't take public school students to a church to see them put on "A Charlie Brown Christmas" as a play. Besides the religious problems, the church was violating the law because the owners of the rights weren't allowing it to be performed anywhere as a live play:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/11/27/a-separate-legal-issue-about-that-church-putting-on-a-charlie-brown-christmas/

 

And the atheist monument is in a public forum. Again, atheists are being treated the same as anyone else. Got a problem with that?

 

For student clubs, that's only if the groups want official recognition (which often includes some funding). If they want to be an entirely private group without official recognition, they can do that. If you think it's a violation, file a lawsuit.

 

Am. Atheists sued over the 9/11 cross because not just Christians were killed in the attack.

 

"Government officials have misused their powers to deny business licenses to those whose religious beliefs differ from those held by the government officials on LGBT marriage:"

 

Well, now you can't read. The mayor of Boston said that, and he was reprimanded by the ACLU, and NO business license was ever denied:

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/07/boston-mayor-backs-off-chick-fil-a-aclu-warns-politicians-to-avoid-threats/

Also, where's the atheist in this story? The mayor of Boston isn't an atheist.

 

As for the Camp Pendleton cross, the US isn't a Christians-only country, there's no reason to have government memorials just for Christians.

 

And same for firesighters.

 

As for city seals, no, you do not have a "right" to have your religious symbols on city seals.

 

"I could go on and on, and on, but the fact is that atheists, and those pursuing secular goals, have attempted to impinge on the religious rights of Americans"

 

Sorry, what you call "rights" are not what I call rights. Some of what you are complaining about above are actually Christians losing special privileges and atheists finally being treated equally, such as the Santa Monica story or the atheist monument (which was put up in response to a ten commandments monument on the same public property).

I can give you the back story to that one, KDD. Chester County isn't discriminating against atheists, they're discriminating against assholes. A few years back the local atheists lobbied to have their tree put next to the Christmas tree and menorah. That request was granted as an equal access type deal. Unfortunately, the atheists chose to decorate their tree with cards that explicitly mocked the beliefs of the people that put up the two religious symbols. The County, rightly IMO, concluded that the atheist group had lied in their petition and did not want to express any type of good wishes for the season/winter/life-in-general, but instead wanted a platform to denigrate religious people. For subsequent years they've been told to take a hike and, quite frankly, I hope they're kept out until such time that they can grow up and act with some grace.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Well AZMike, your examples of Christian business owners being told by the state they have to provide services for LGBT weddings is simply a matter of businesses being considered public accommodations. They can't refuse their services any more than someone whose religion objects to mixed-race marriages, or mixed-religion marriages could refuse to do business with couples of mixed races or mixed religions. You can argue against public accommodation laws, but I'm in favor of them.

 

As for Catholic adoption agencies, if they take state money they have to follow the rules for accepting that money. They could still discriminate if they want to forgo state money and be an entirely private adoption organization, but they decided not to do that. I see nothing wrong with the state having requirements for their adoption funding.

 

For atheists suing the IRS, all nonprofits, including churches, are prevented from endorsing political candidates. Some churches have been violating this law, so the atheists sued the IRS to make them apply the law. Of course, if you want to be completely private and not get nonprofit status, churches can endorse political candidates.

 

About the HHS fight, it's not atheists doing that.

 

Military chaplains aren't supposed to insult soldiers in military service, and writing the old "no atheists in foxholes" does just that. Such insults are an actual violation of military regs.

 

The Santa Monica situation was where Christians had preferential treatment for 60 years; when the city had to change it to a fair system, atheists got most of the spots. So now you're complaining about a level playing field.

 

And sorry, you can't take public school students to a church to see them put on "A Charlie Brown Christmas" as a play. Besides the religious problems, the church was violating the law because the owners of the rights weren't allowing it to be performed anywhere as a live play:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/11/27/a-separate-legal-issue-about-that-church-putting-on-a-charlie-brown-christmas/

 

And the atheist monument is in a public forum. Again, atheists are being treated the same as anyone else. Got a problem with that?

 

For student clubs, that's only if the groups want official recognition (which often includes some funding). If they want to be an entirely private group without official recognition, they can do that. If you think it's a violation, file a lawsuit.

 

Am. Atheists sued over the 9/11 cross because not just Christians were killed in the attack.

 

"Government officials have misused their powers to deny business licenses to those whose religious beliefs differ from those held by the government officials on LGBT marriage:"

 

Well, now you can't read. The mayor of Boston said that, and he was reprimanded by the ACLU, and NO business license was ever denied:

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/07/boston-mayor-backs-off-chick-fil-a-aclu-warns-politicians-to-avoid-threats/

Also, where's the atheist in this story? The mayor of Boston isn't an atheist.

 

As for the Camp Pendleton cross, the US isn't a Christians-only country, there's no reason to have government memorials just for Christians.

 

And same for firesighters.

 

As for city seals, no, you do not have a "right" to have your religious symbols on city seals.

 

"I could go on and on, and on, but the fact is that atheists, and those pursuing secular goals, have attempted to impinge on the religious rights of Americans"

 

Sorry, what you call "rights" are not what I call rights. Some of what you are complaining about above are actually Christians losing special privileges and atheists finally being treated equally, such as the Santa Monica story or the atheist monument (which was put up in response to a ten commandments monument on the same public property).

I can give you the back story to that one, KDD. Chester County isn't discriminating against atheists, they're discriminating against assholes. A few years back the local atheists lobbied to have their tree put next to the Christmas tree and menorah. That request was granted as an equal access type deal. Unfortunately, the atheists chose to decorate their tree with cards that explicitly mocked the beliefs of the people that put up the two religious symbols.

 

First Huzzar, you are mischaracterizing what they put up; it was a tree with book covers.

This has a list from 2009:

http://www.ftsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Tree-of-Knowledge-Online-Book-20091.pdf

Here's 2008:

http://www.ftsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Tree-of-Knowledge-Master-Booklist.pdf

 

Now, when it comes to free speech, "offensiveness" isn't something the government can decide on. Otherwise, any bible display would get objected to by atheists for calling them fools, right?

 

The County, rightly IMO, concluded that the atheist group had lied in their petition and did not want to express any type of good wishes for the season/winter/life-in-general, but instead wanted a platform to denigrate religious people.

 

Even if that's what they wanted, it's not constitutional to limit their free speech rights on such grounds.

 

For subsequent years they've been told to take a hike and, quite frankly, I hope they're kept out until such time that they can grow up and act with some grace.

 

Like people who call other people "assholes"? Should such people have their free speech limited, hypocrite?

[King Ding Dong 540]

Well AZMike, your examples of Christian business owners being told by the state they have to provide services for LGBT weddings is simply a matter of businesses being considered public accommodations. They can't refuse their services any more than someone whose religion objects to mixed-race marriages, or mixed-religion marriages could refuse to do business with couples of mixed races or mixed religions. You can argue against public accommodation laws, but I'm in favor of them.

 

As for Catholic adoption agencies, if they take state money they have to follow the rules for accepting that money. They could still discriminate if they want to forgo state money and be an entirely private adoption organization, but they decided not to do that. I see nothing wrong with the state having requirements for their adoption funding.

 

For atheists suing the IRS, all nonprofits, including churches, are prevented from endorsing political candidates. Some churches have been violating this law, so the atheists sued the IRS to make them apply the law. Of course, if you want to be completely private and not get nonprofit status, churches can endorse political candidates.

 

About the HHS fight, it's not atheists doing that.

 

Military chaplains aren't supposed to insult soldiers in military service, and writing the old "no atheists in foxholes" does just that. Such insults are an actual violation of military regs.

 

The Santa Monica situation was where Christians had preferential treatment for 60 years; when the city had to change it to a fair system, atheists got most of the spots. So now you're complaining about a level playing field.

 

And sorry, you can't take public school students to a church to see them put on "A Charlie Brown Christmas" as a play. Besides the religious problems, the church was violating the law because the owners of the rights weren't allowing it to be performed anywhere as a live play:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/11/27/a-separate-legal-issue-about-that-church-putting-on-a-charlie-brown-christmas/

 

And the atheist monument is in a public forum. Again, atheists are being treated the same as anyone else. Got a problem with that?

 

For student clubs, that's only if the groups want official recognition (which often includes some funding). If they want to be an entirely private group without official recognition, they can do that. If you think it's a violation, file a lawsuit.

 

Am. Atheists sued over the 9/11 cross because not just Christians were killed in the attack.

 

"Government officials have misused their powers to deny business licenses to those whose religious beliefs differ from those held by the government officials on LGBT marriage:"

 

Well, now you can't read. The mayor of Boston said that, and he was reprimanded by the ACLU, and NO business license was ever denied:

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/07/boston-mayor-backs-off-chick-fil-a-aclu-warns-politicians-to-avoid-threats/

Also, where's the atheist in this story? The mayor of Boston isn't an atheist.

 

As for the Camp Pendleton cross, the US isn't a Christians-only country, there's no reason to have government memorials just for Christians.

 

And same for firesighters.

 

As for city seals, no, you do not have a "right" to have your religious symbols on city seals.

 

"I could go on and on, and on, but the fact is that atheists, and those pursuing secular goals, have attempted to impinge on the religious rights of Americans"

 

Sorry, what you call "rights" are not what I call rights. Some of what you are complaining about above are actually Christians losing special privileges and atheists finally being treated equally, such as the Santa Monica story or the atheist monument (which was put up in response to a ten commandments monument on the same public property).

What about the Pastafarians ? They are not Atheists.

[Stosh 3452]

You are right; I do not understand because I do not see anybody being harmed most of the time, other than feelings hurt due to thin skin and emotional weakness.

 

You mean the way Christians whine when they lose their special privileges? The way you complain when atheists sue for their rights?

 

Don't pay any attention to something that is against your belief. Simply ignore them or put your own interpretation in the mix; but forcing others NOT to have free speech by threats and litigation is simply abusing their rights at the expense of yours.

 

I disagree. Looks like you've got your feelings hurt due to your emotional weakness.

 

JMO of course, as I am not hurt either way. We will never reach a point of even near agreement, and I am fine with that. You have a right to your opinion, even if I see it as biased, skewed, and unreasonable. Enjoy.

 

Yep, how dare atheists try to be treated equally.

 

 

 

 

So then let's have some examples where atheists aren't treated equally.

 

Stosh

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

You are right; I do not understand because I do not see anybody being harmed most of the time, other than feelings hurt due to thin skin and emotional weakness.

 

You mean the way Christians whine when they lose their special privileges? The way you complain when atheists sue for their rights?

 

Don't pay any attention to something that is against your belief. Simply ignore them or put your own interpretation in the mix; but forcing others NOT to have free speech by threats and litigation is simply abusing their rights at the expense of yours.

 

I disagree. Looks like you've got your feelings hurt due to your emotional weakness.

 

JMO of course, as I am not hurt either way. We will never reach a point of even near agreement, and I am fine with that. You have a right to your opinion, even if I see it as biased, skewed, and unreasonable. Enjoy.

 

Yep, how dare atheists try to be treated equally.

 

 

 

 

OK...

 

In 1992, Herb Silverman applied to be a notary public in South Carolina. Being an atheist, he crossed out 'so help me god' on his application. Out of about 30,000 applications, his was the only one rejected, and it was rejected only because he crossed out the unconstitutional religious test oath.

 

Now, even though it had been established by the supreme court thirty years earlier in Torcaso v. Watkins that requiring 'so help me god' was an unconstitutional religious test, the state of South Carolina decided to spend $300,000 and five years fighting the ACLU lawsuit trying to deny Mr. Silverman his application.

 

 

Last year, Jessica Ahlquist informed school officials of Cranston High School West in New Jersey that the prayer banner in the school auditorium was unconstitutional and needed to be removed. After a lawsuit, and numerous death threats and rape threats to Jessica Ahlquist which required a police escort for a time, the courts found that, yes, it was a violation.

 

 

You'll notice that in both of these cases the courts agreed with the atheist, yet they were hardly treated fairly.

 

There are plenty more stories like these. You might understand why I'm a bit jaded about Christians complaining about losing "their" public park spots for holiday decorations after having had them unchallenged for 60 years and finally being treated equally. Yeah, my heart really bleeds for ya...

[Stosh 3452]

You are right; I do not understand because I do not see anybody being harmed most of the time, other than feelings hurt due to thin skin and emotional weakness.

 

You mean the way Christians whine when they lose their special privileges? The way you complain when atheists sue for their rights?

 

Don't pay any attention to something that is against your belief. Simply ignore them or put your own interpretation in the mix; but forcing others NOT to have free speech by threats and litigation is simply abusing their rights at the expense of yours.

 

I disagree. Looks like you've got your feelings hurt due to your emotional weakness.

 

JMO of course, as I am not hurt either way. We will never reach a point of even near agreement, and I am fine with that. You have a right to your opinion, even if I see it as biased, skewed, and unreasonable. Enjoy.

 

Yep, how dare atheists try to be treated equally.

 

 

 

 

No different than religious organizations losing non-profit status. So I guess everyone, including atheists, whine when they lose their special privileges. Looks like hurt feelings doesn't it.

 

Stosh

[packsaddle 753]

You are right; I do not understand because I do not see anybody being harmed most of the time, other than feelings hurt due to thin skin and emotional weakness.

 

You mean the way Christians whine when they lose their special privileges? The way you complain when atheists sue for their rights?

 

Don't pay any attention to something that is against your belief. Simply ignore them or put your own interpretation in the mix; but forcing others NOT to have free speech by threats and litigation is simply abusing their rights at the expense of yours.

 

I disagree. Looks like you've got your feelings hurt due to your emotional weakness.

 

JMO of course, as I am not hurt either way. We will never reach a point of even near agreement, and I am fine with that. You have a right to your opinion, even if I see it as biased, skewed, and unreasonable. Enjoy.

 

Yep, how dare atheists try to be treated equally.

 

 

 

 

I had friends living nearby whose children were subjected to mandatory school prayers. Everyone in the school had a devotional at the same time every day. My friend complained that his children were being forced to participate in something contrary to their religious background. The school responded by putting the children in chairs in the hallway for the duration of each devotional. They complained again. The boys were then no longer considered for any of the team sports activities. The mom was taken off the substitute teacher list. They were told that they were not welcome in stores.

 

They ended up having to move to another area.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

You are right; I do not understand because I do not see anybody being harmed most of the time, other than feelings hurt due to thin skin and emotional weakness.

 

You mean the way Christians whine when they lose their special privileges? The way you complain when atheists sue for their rights?

 

Don't pay any attention to something that is against your belief. Simply ignore them or put your own interpretation in the mix; but forcing others NOT to have free speech by threats and litigation is simply abusing their rights at the expense of yours.

 

I disagree. Looks like you've got your feelings hurt due to your emotional weakness.

 

JMO of course, as I am not hurt either way. We will never reach a point of even near agreement, and I am fine with that. You have a right to your opinion, even if I see it as biased, skewed, and unreasonable. Enjoy.

 

Yep, how dare atheists try to be treated equally.

 

 

 

 

No different than religious organizations losing non-profit status.

 

What are you babbling about? If any non-profit (religious or not) refuses to follow the requirements to have nonprofit status, including not endorsing political candidates, they, of course, lose their non-profit status. Or they can forgo it and endorse anyone they like. Or they can challenge the law in court, something that both American Atheists and many churches would like, even though they are on opposite sides, because they both think their side will win.

 

Because being required to follow the law is SO just like rape threats, eh?

[packsaddle 753]

You are right; I do not understand because I do not see anybody being harmed most of the time, other than feelings hurt due to thin skin and emotional weakness.

 

You mean the way Christians whine when they lose their special privileges? The way you complain when atheists sue for their rights?

 

Don't pay any attention to something that is against your belief. Simply ignore them or put your own interpretation in the mix; but forcing others NOT to have free speech by threats and litigation is simply abusing their rights at the expense of yours.

 

I disagree. Looks like you've got your feelings hurt due to your emotional weakness.

 

JMO of course, as I am not hurt either way. We will never reach a point of even near agreement, and I am fine with that. You have a right to your opinion, even if I see it as biased, skewed, and unreasonable. Enjoy.

 

Yep, how dare atheists try to be treated equally.

 

 

 

 

I'm not an atheist but this would have applied to an atheist. In North Carolina, I applied to change my voter registration. I had to swear an oath. I objected. I was told that in North Carolina, "If you don't believe in God, you can't vote." That's a direct quote.