Are atheists persecuted in the United States?

[struggle4progress]

Persecution could mean different things.

It could mean assaults by the lawful authority, acting outside the law, or abusing process under color of law: an example of such an assault might be the deportation of Maher Arar for torture, which is perhaps persecution of an Middle Eastern Islamic man.

It could mean failure of police protection, as black Americans have experienced in various places.

It could mean the continuing existence of a subculture of deadly violence, even if the lawful authorities subsequently prosecute: an example here might be the murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming in 1998, for the "crime" of being gay.

It could mean the continuing existence of a subculture using established threats: examples might include the spraying of swastikas on temples or the burning of crosses in black neighborhoods, activities which continue to occur with some regularity.

[More Than A Feeling]

1. When a Jewish family can be run out of town in Delaware

it stands to reason that it would be at least that bad for atheists.

[struggle4progress]

7. Yes, well, there's probably more than one small town like that in the US,

and your logic is probably correct: it's probably at least that bad there for anybody who doesn't fit the narrow cultural mould.

But I'm not sure how common such stories are currently: there was a big push towards tolerance beginning in the mid-1960's, and it became rather unacceptable across much of the the United States to express such intolerant views.

I'm not saying that the neanderthals aren't still out there, and that there aren't some neanderthal communities -- but how commonly are people run out of town?

[China_cat]

18. Maybe not run out of town

but we were evicted from a residence we had rented for almost 6 years because somebody told the landlord that we were atheists. Herb Silverman had to fight in court for 7 years to become a NOTARY because he's an atheist and no other atheist has been able to become one since. Couples are routinely turned down not only for adoption but for foster care status if they are atheists (a single gay person can qualify quicker than an atheist couple).

A lot of the persecution isn't as blatant as being run out of town but can be just as devastating when you're denied a place to live, a job, help of any kind when you say you are a non-believer.

[shimmergal]

190. Just wondering about your statement

on atheists being turned down for adoption or foster care parenting. Not doubting it, just wondering if there's anywhere I can follow this up and see how common it is. A private message is fine. I have a semi-personal reason for being interested.
.

[China_cat]

197. It's not codified in a formal statement

in most states but your eligibility will be decided by a case worker and judge...both of who will use their own beliefs to help them decide whether you would be acceptable. Even if it's not on the application you will be asked where you go to church, if you belong to that church, how often you attend and if you would be willing to take (foster) children to a different church if that happened to be their denomination. (The last is legitimate, as far as I'm concerned, because if a child is old enough to want to go to church they shouldn't be prevented)

It's a very subjective thing and, if you have an atheist or secular humanist group in your area, I'd contact them and find out what the general tenor is in your community. Here in SC, even though the law says you may be of ANY religion, you will not be accepted if you are of no religion...or Muslim.

[beam me up scottie]

27. Ask Charles Smalkowski, genius.

He's still a member here I believe.

[struggle4progress]

51. Feel free to provide a link.

[cosmik debris]

56. OK

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1598933&mesg_id=1598933

[beam me up scottie]

77. Eh ?

What's that I http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav">hear?

[struggle4progress]

86. It's impossible to know what to make of that story.

I'm glad to hear he was cleared on the assault charges. And the experience of his daughter sounds much like my experiences in the public schools, where I absolutely refused to engage in the school-prayers and was constantly called on the carpet for it. But a telling of the tale by a disinterested party would have been more useful.

[beam me up scottie]

89. Is it really? Funny, most DU christians were outraged. But not you.

What a shock.

Choke it down.

[More Than A Feeling]

57. Looks like you have your answer, and that answer is "Yes."

Our atheist brothers and sisters have de facto second class status , and that is just wrong.

[cosmik debris]

62. And if I might add

PART of the reason for that is that SOME good-hearted well-meaning people are willing to ignore the suffering of those with whom they disagree.

[cosmik debris]

2. #2,#4,#5,&#6 are all true in my experience

Others may have different experiences.

[Warpy]

3. Consider it's illegal for atheists to run for public office

in many cities, counties, and states.

I'd call that persecution.

[struggle4progress]

4. Addressed by Torcaso v. Watkins in 1961

U.S. Supreme Court
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
367 U.S. 488
TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 373.
Argued April 24, 1961.
Decided June 19, 1961.

Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued ... Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 489-496.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=367&invol=488


It is of course offensive to find such laws still on the books, but it seems likely that none would survive a court challenge.

Perhaps the court challenges have often not come for political reasons, insofar as it is probably true in many parts of the country that declaring oneself an atheist would be politically suicidal -- which is certainly also offensive.

But if one wanted to run a serious campaign, and found a clerk refusing to file papers or an opponent challenging the candidacy by reason of the failure to hold a particular religious view, one could probably win the right to run immediately in court on the basis of established law. To win such a campaign, however, having successfully filed, one might need to be rigorously careful about what one actually said about religion: perhaps not much more than "I am not running for Priest or Pastor or Minister or Rabbi: I am running for comptroller."

[cosmik debris]

6. That's good academic work but

For an atheist to pursue that court case to the Supreme Court would cost at least $100,000. And the Christians get that same right for free. That might be called unequal treatment. It certainly is not Liberty and Justice for all.

[struggle4progress]

11. I'm doubting whether such laws are currently enforced.

South Carolina didn't remove its ugly ban on interracial marriage from its Constitution until 1998. But it hadn't been enforced for years.

I'd certainly be interested if anyone has information on refusals to allow people to run for public office on the basis of such religious tests. I'd expect there may be an occasional anecdote about an asshole clerk giving somebody a hard time, but if attempts to disqualify on these grounds occur regularly, there are enough people interested in the Constitutional issue that there should be statistics available.

It seems unlikely that anyone would need to pursue such an issue to the level of SCOTUS, the law being established on this matter.

[cosmik debris]

14. You are evading the issue

Christians get the right uncontested. Atheists have to hire a lawyer and pay court costs. I know you will never agree that it is persecution, but it is certainly a double standard benefiting Christians.

[struggle4progress]

16. If this is happening, you should be able to cite examples of atheists who ...

.. were not allowed to run for religious reasons and actually had to go to court to qualify for the ballot.

I certainly agree it's offensive to see such language in state constitutions, for example, but if the provision is unenforceable, most jurisdictions wouldn't waste their time and money trying to enforce it.

On the other hand, you tell me that atheists may have to hire lawyers and pay court costs to run for office: I'm generally doubtful but could be wrong -- either because there are a few idiot clerks out there who act like jerks and who promptly get slapped down or because in practice atheists are typically disqualified and forced to go to court to obtain the right.

In either case, you should be able to provide some evidence for your claim.

[cosmik debris]

21. That is like asking me to count the Hispanics who didn't vote

Because they were told that they would be deported if they showed up at the polls.

We know that the intimidation happened. We know that it had an impact. It is impossible to measure, but it is there.

Deterrence works. You may not call it persecution, but it is certainly unfair treatment.

[struggle4progress]

53. Fear of ballot disqualification is analogous to fear of deportation?

I strongly urge you to read up on the current powers of the INS with respect to noncitizens -- and to investigate the unfortunate fact that these powers are sometimes assumed by the INS when dealing with citizens who don't have documentation handy.

[beam me up scottie]

100. So in your esteemed opinion, immigrants face discrimination but not atheists?

Keep digging.

[okasha]

137. Torcaso is a SCOTUS decision.

The case has already been fought, and won.

[trotsky]

138. Yep, just like laws against hate crimes...

have made hatred of and discrimination against gays and minorities go away. Issue settled, right? The United States of Utopia?

[okasha]

159. Issue settled as far as the courts go,

which was the question being raised in the post I answered. Torcaso is law and supercedes state ordinances or Constitutions.

BTW, some years ago an atheist ran for Mayor in my very Catholic little corner of South Texas--and no one tried to stop him.

[trotsky]

172. Good thing atheists I know care more about gay rights...

than you care about atheists' rights.

[okasha]

217. Good thing that's BS.

Here's a couple questions I asked you some time ago, and you never answered:

Where is the atheist civil rights movement, your equivalent of Selma or Stonewall or the 1973 Pine Ridge uprising? Are you personally doing anything to advance it, if it exists? (Bellyaching about the dastardliness of Christians on a messageboard doesn't count.) If it doesn't exist, why haven't you started one? Certainly if your situation is as dire as you and others say it is, you ought to be out demonstrating in the streets. Why aren't you?

[trotsky]

226. Oh, so having a monumental event is now required to have a legitimate...

beef for one's civil rights?

Honestly, okasha, your contempt for the non-religious is overwhelming. As a matter of fact, I *am* doing things to personally advance the civil rights of non-believers, by donating my time and money to organizations that fight for them. Two local groups, the FFRF, and the ACLU, to name just a few. I participate in my local school board to ensure religious creeps don't infringe on my rights there. It's a constant battle because of attitudes like yours. So, thanks.

[cosmik debris]

177. You make two points

1. Since Torcaso is law, no one violates it.

2. Since some atheists are not persecuted, no atheists are persecuted.

Do you see how absurd your points are?

[okasha]

218. No, I don't.

You want to find where I actually said any such thing? If you want to take issue with what I actually said, good. If you want to invent strawmen and take issue with figments of your own imagination, have at it. It's only your own time you're wasting.

[China_cat]

19. Look up Herb Silverman

and the state of SC. Took him 7 years of court fights to become a notary.

[struggle4progress]

38. Thanks. That's an interesting story -- and unfortunately reflects my view of SC.

http://chickasawplum.homestead.com/files/essays/archive_05/01_2005_candidate_without_a_prayer.html

South Carolina Supreme Court Okays Atheists for Public Office
American Civil Liberties Union

May 30, 1997

Columbia, South Carolina -- An atheist does not have to swear to a "supreme being" to hold public office in South Carolina, the state Supreme Court has ruled ...

The South Carolina high court agreed that forcing public officers to acknowledge the existence of a "supreme being" -- required by the state's constitution -- violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment that provides for religious liberty and separation of church and state.

South Carolina was one of seven states that require belief in a higher power to hold public office, the State said.

Arkansas, Maryland, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas have similar clauses, the paper said, but they don't enforce them.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/silverman.htm

So, good: Silverman won this pain-in-the-butt case ten years ago. What's the current evidence on such bullshit from the state?


I'd remark in passing: it's somewhat strange then seeing Silverman delivering a sermon at Unitarian Universalist Church (where he apparently met his wife):

Positive Atheism
By Herb Silverman
Adapted from a "sermon" given to the Unitarian Church of Charleston on February 6, 2005.

... Other labels that some atheists prefer include humanist, secular humanist, agnostic, rationalist, freethinker, skeptic, and materialist ...

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2005/nov/silverman.php

The choice of labels is interesting to me since, although I don't call myself an atheist or agnostic, I do call myself a humanist, secular humanist, rationalist, freethinker, skeptic, and materialist.

[China_cat]

76. Still happening

I don't have the money for a 7 year fight.

[struggle4progress]

79. You say it's still happening: where's the evidence?

[China_cat]

94. I guess my denied application

for whiting out the 'so help me god' portion of the app wouldn't convince you so all I can say is, come put in an application for yourself. It's 2006, the 'I swear that the statements made are true to the best of my knowledge SO HELP ME GOD' is STILL there and it won't be accepted if you modify it. Oh, the current application carries a copyright/revision date of 2005. If the discrimination is gone, why is that statement still there in the first place?

Ok, here's the exact wording that I just took off the current app:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am duly qualified, according to the Constitution of South Carolina, to exercise the duties of the office to which I have been appointed and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge the duties thereof and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of this State, and of the United States. So help me God.

Now, out of all the notary apps in 25 years, the only ones refused are those from people who refuse to declare a belief in god.

[cosmik debris]

98. And that reminds me of another story.

A few months ago I was called for Federal Jury Duty. I was asked to take an oath that ended in So Help Me God. I asked to be excused from the God part and I was excused from the jury pool. Ahhh! American Justice--the envy of the world. (choke, gasp, giggle)

[China_cat]

114. Claim you're a Quaker

they're excused from swearing an oath in all courts and allowed to make an 'affirmation' instead. With no mention of any gods.

Another thing you can do is, when asked to swear on a bible or an oath to 'god', just tell them that since you don't believe in the sanctity of either, for you to swear on/to them would be a lie and that's not what they want.

[cosmik debris]

124. I didn't get a chance to claim anything

I was excused the minute I declined to say "so help me god"

And that was the end of the story sorta. I located the defense attorney and related the story to her. If her client had been found guilty, BINGO grounds for appeal. But the jury that was empaneled found the defendant not guilty. Anticlimax!

[China_cat]

160. I don't understand why the 'oath'

wouldn't make more sense worded as "I promise to truthfully answer all questions put to me under penalty of law". Cuz the law's perjury penalties are a hell of a lot worse than anything any 'god' is going to do to you for lying. And if you're a christian, all you have to do is tell god you're sorry you lied and bingo...get out of hell free card.

[trotsky]

173. One of the earliest Chrisitian leaders/theologians, Eusibus, said...

that it was perfectly OK to lie as long as the gospel was spread in the process.

[struggle4progress]

192. Could you provide a link to Eusebius actual text to support this claim?

I don't mean a link to some site that merely reiterates your claim "Eusebius advocated lying" but a link that shows what Eusebius actually said in context.

[trotsky]

201. Sure thing.

Praeparatio Evangelica, (Book 12, Chapter 31) "That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment"

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_12_book12.htm

Worth noting is that he also provides the very first instance of the infamous forged Josephus passage (supposedly verifying not only that Jesus existed but was the messiah!).

There are some other passages, if memory serves me, that support the idea Eusebius was OK with lying. I have seen some desperate Christian apologists try to dismiss these with various weak arguments, like it was really an underling or a later translator who snuck in the words (ironic, considering the Josephus forgery).

A simple Google search should turn up more for you.

[struggle4progress]

206. From the introduction section of the website to which you link:

Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel).
Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Preface to the online edition

... The Praeparatio is perhaps best known from a narrow-minded attempt by Edward Gibbon in his Vindication to use it to 'prove' that Eusebius advocated deceit.  The smear needs little discussion here. While Gibbon would like us to believe that Eusebius is really saying in book 12, chapter 31 that the bible is a lie so deceit is fine, some will feel that instead that it is simply part of his theme that the bible contains narrative fiction in order to get conceptually difficult truths into the uneducated.  The reader is invited to read all of book 12 and decide for themselves ...

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_00_eintro.htm

Since I'm not particularly excited by Eusebius, I wouldn't expect you to be either, and since I don't regard his arguments as persuasive, neither do I expect you to be persuaded by them. But if you want to quote Eusebius, at least quote him honestly. The document is an attempt to reconcile Plato's philosophy with the Hebraic scriptural tradition: the idealism of Plato and its hostility towards the material world is used in combination with Old Testament references. By the time one gets to Chapter XXX, the author believes he has established by logical argument a case for being religious (which I think is a pointless exercise). Here's the whole of the chapter you cite:

CHAPTER XXXI

100 'But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly? Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.'

Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning G-d as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.

Note that the quote in this chapter, attributed to Plato, doesn't say lying is OK but rather says something like: "We've proved this, but even if it were untrue, telling people this, while knowing it was a falsehood, would be fairly beneficial in comparison with most falsehoods that people tell." Note also that the Chapter XXXI quote from Plato ends by praising Truth. To read this in context, in Chapter IV, Plato is quoted to the effect that we begin education by telling children fables, which have some truth, and later proceed to more accurate discussions; in the same vein, in Chapter VI, Plato is quoted as explicitly saying he tells a story the listener will regard as a myth but which Plato regards as true. And Eusebius puts this quote from Plato to the following use: he says that scriptural passages discussing G-d as if "jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passion" are phrased that way as educational devices -- that is, this is a nonliteralist interpretation of scripture from the period of the Roman Empire.

[trotsky]

207. Yep, one person's interpretation.

Other scholars think differently, including Christian ones. Feel free to Google on your own to study both sides.

[struggle4progress]

209. If you had an argument to the contrary, you'd be welcome to provide it.

[trotsky]

210. Arguments on both sides are readily available.

Google is your friend.

[NMMNG]

252. Why should someone have to lie to avoid bigotry?

The entire idea of being dishonest to avoid the religious bigotries of others is disgusting. People need to get over their stupidity rather than forcing others to lie or be relegated to second-class status.

[struggle4progress]

253. I don't think the wording of the juror's oath is even prescribed in federal court but

from the earliest days of the Republic, there have been people who refused either to swear or to say "So help me G-d," and from the beginning accommodation has always been made for them. Here, for example, is an excerpt from Section 7 of The Judiciary Act of 1789, regarding the oath taken by court clerks:

And be it enacted, That the Supreme Court, and the district courts shall have power to appoint clerks for their respective courts, and that the clerk for each district court shall be clerk also of the circuit court in such district, and each of the said clerks shall, before he enters upon the execution of his office, take the following oath or affirmation, to wit: "I, A. B., being appointed clerk of , do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all the orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of the said court, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties of my said office, according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God." Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath.

Nothing could possibly be easier, than when asked "Do you solemnly swear &c&c" than merely to say "I so affirm" or -- when asked to repeat an oath -- to substitute "affirm" for "swear" and to neglect to add the "So help me" part, if it is there at all. This is a practice with a long and established history, and were one is questioned about it (which my long experience suggests will not happen), one could say simply "As a matter of conscience, I affirm rather than swear."

[cosmik debris]

254. That is irrelevant.

Once again you are avoiding the issue. I was immediately excused from the jury pool. I was not given any options. I was not given the opportunity to discuss options. I was just excluded.

You seem to make the point that the law prevents people from violating the rights of others. It certainly did not in my case. Perhaps in your dream world, I could have sued the Federal Judge and asked him to rule that he was in violation of the law, and that he failed to force himself to respect my rights, but that is pretty silly.

And how much would it have cost me to get the rights that Christians get for free? As a second class citizen I have to buy those rights you take for granted.

[struggle4progress]

255. Why don't you tell us exactly what happened? Which courthouse,

which judge, what year? Was this during voir dire or after? How was the oath in question worded? What exactly did you say before or during the taking of the oath? What form did your dismissal "from the jury pool" take? Who excused you from the pool? What, if any, reason was given for excusing you?

After you provide that information, perhaps you could explain in some detail exactly what you think constitutes the "right to be a juror." Is peremptory challenge, for example, a violation of the "right to be a juror"?

[cosmik debris]

256. Why don't I?

Because it would not make any difference. You closed your mind before you opened your mouth.

[struggle4progress]

258. Okie dokie! Since your posts clearly exhibit you as the ideal juror, calm, sober,

slow to form opinions, unlikely to fly off the handle or blurt out anything inappropriate, I really cannot imagine what could possibly have transpired that prevented you from exercising your right to sit as a juror in judgment of the accused party.

[struggle4progress]

116. I just say "affirm" rather than "swear" and leave off the last bit, when

confronted with such oaths. Big deal.

[beam me up scottie]

120. It IS a big deal and THAT is one of the most intolerant posts I've ever seen here.

I just say "affirm" rather than "swear" and leave off the last bit, when confronted with such oaths. Big deal.

What advice do you give to homosexuals when they are expected to lie about who they are?


"Stop your whining, just marry a woman and pretend. Big deal. " ? :mad:

[struggle4progress]

126. I handled it that way when I was an atheist. No biggie.

[cosmik debris]

131. This is Federal Court

excluding people based on religion (or lack thereof) No biggie. Justice is optional.

[struggle4progress]

139. Federal jurors have the right to affirm rather than to swear.

[cosmik debris]

140. Like other rights

You don't have them if someone takes them away from you. I was deprived of my rights and given no recourse. I was excused from the jury pool. That was all there was to that right. Once I was excused from the jury poll the argument of rights was moot.

And of course, you missed the point of the story that I refused to say "so help me god" You are good at missing the point. I bet you have practiced. You couldn't be that good without trying, could you?

[shimmergal]

193. I would interpret "So help me God" as

a figure of speech, meaning "to the best of my ability." After all, even if someone says it thinking they're calling on God to help them, that help may not necessarily follow. It's only the fundamentalists who take everything related to religion literally.

No offense intended, please. If you had really wanted to serve on the jury pool I'm sorry they dismissed you, but refusing to say the phrase wasn't really necessary, IMO.

[cosmik debris]

195. Being an atheist is not necessary either

But I am and I will stay one. I will not pretend to be something I am not just to placate a bigoted majority.

It is not my obligation to conform to suit others. It is the obligation of the Federal Government to accommodate the diversity where ever it exists.

[cosmik debris]

81. But according to the OP

It doesn't count until you lose the fight. There is no such thing as deterrence and threats have no impact. Living in a dream world? I think so.

[struggle4progress]

91. Supposing you are right, why not get a number of people to file for minor office and

try to get themselves disqualified on religious grounds?

For the minor office, the filing fees would be small, nobody would be out of pocket much, and if one coordinated this around the country, it would make a media splash. Filing for office and being disqualified doesn't compel one into court, so nobody necessarily loses much money.

But I expect that in most districts one would simply have a number of new candidates on the ballot. It's not that hard to do.

[cosmik debris]

93. You are overlooking, or ignoring

the many other hazards of being outed as an atheists. You listed some of them in your OP, but there are many more. I know a lot of brave atheists, but very few stupid ones.

[struggle4progress]

113. Don't give me this horseshit: I spent decades of my life refusing ..

.. to put up with public religious crap in all sorts of settings. I was a Christian in high school but had materialist and secular humanist views which led everyone to call me an atheist, not helped by the fact that I refused to pray with the sports teams and assemblies in in class at the start of the day. Listening to the high school fundamentalists, I became absolutely disgusted with religion and called myself an atheist for quite a number of years, without any shyness whatsoever.

I had a fair amount of experience with how different people regarded me as an atheist, and even twenty or thirty years ago there was a substantial diversity of reaction from the public, ranging from people who bemusedly didn't understand why I would be an atheist, to people who really didn't care what philosophy I held, to people who were intolerant assholes towards anyone whose views on any subject differed from their own.

[beam me up scottie]

117. So your personal experience with discrimination doesn't count either?

Or are you trying to say we've come a long way, baby?

[struggle4progress]

125. I never claimed prejudice or discrimination didn't exist, but asked about persecution

Prejudice and discrimination are unfortunately ubiquitous in American culture, and all manner of subgroups are prejudiced against various other subgroups.

Prejudice and discrimination exact emotional costs, of course. But I asked about persecution.

[More Than A Feeling]

128. What is the difference between prejudice/discrimination on the basis of no faith

and persecution on the basis of no faith?

It sounds like semantics to me.

[cosmik debris]

134. Watch Out!

I sense a Holy Dictionary verse coming!

[More Than A Feeling]

135. Let us now read from the Gospel of Webster, Chapter PA-PE, Verse Persecution

;)

[cosmik debris]

127. I like that

Since you don't fear retaliation no one should.

I know a lot of brave atheists, but very few stupid ones. I guess I should get to know you better.

[Warpy]

143. That such laws are still on the books mean

that we still have to file suit to run for office in areas with those laws on the books. We still make the faithful too nervous to be allowed to run unmolested by unconstitutional law.

Put that on top of the cost of running and it all becomes prohibitively expensive.

[struggle4progress]

165. Can you provide any recent example of anyone prevented from running for office

due to the candidate's alleged or announced atheism? There should be essentially no cost associated with trying to become a candidate and being turned down, if this is actually problem, it should be possible to document, and if it is a problem, atheists could easily put it on the front page of the papers by engaging in a coordinated effort:

It should be easy: atheists try to file campaign papers and are rejected.

People keep making this claim in this thread. Since I don't believe it, the evidence-based crowd should be happy and able to provide evidence. As I understand current law, this can't happen; and I expect that's the real reason that evidence is forthcoming. If you can't provide evidence, don't make the claim ...

[Goblinmonger]

176. Hey genius

How about the people that are atheists just run for office and don't out themselves. They pretend to be good religious people. Kinda like the gay thing.

Can't believe that is so hard for you.

[Warpy]

182. People who are discouraged by knowledge of restrictive laws

on the books don't even ATTEMPT to run.

Are you asking for a list of them? I've been tempted to run. I never will, though, because of those stupid laws and the believing majority's lack of understanding and stupid need to defend themselves against people like me who don't share their views.

There's one for you. I am certain there are more, but if you're asking for a list of names and locations, forget it. We are too persecuted for that.

[struggle4progress]

188. Your profile lists your state as New Mexico. Tell me about anti-atheist laws there.

[cosmik debris]

196. That's the ticket! Change the subject.

When the argument starts to go against you, just talk about something else.

[struggle4progress]

199. NM resident sez "I've been tempted to run. I never will . because of . stupid laws." So, which laws?

[irislake]

9. That can't be true

I refuse to believe it. I do agree with Elton John that religion does more harm than good in the world but think there may be some divine force in the universe. Did you know religion is on the wane in the U.S? You wouldn't guess from the prominence given to it in MSM and the lip service politicians of every stripe pay to it but Canadian poll shows religion is become less important in your country as in Canada and Yurp. So cheer up!

[cosmik debris]

12. The Constitution of the State of Texas (and others)

Requires the acknowledgment of a supreme being as a qualification for public office. It is true that it won't hold up in court, but who has the money to fight it in court?

[struggle4progress]

13. Can you give examples of candidates who have been disqualified in Texas?

[cosmik debris]

15. Is that the threshold? Being disqualified?

What about people who decline to run because they can't afford the court cost and legal fees?

When the Republicans discourage minorities from voting, we condemn it. But when Christians discourage minorities from running for office, should we ignore the hurdles placed in our path? Should we pretend that's not persecution?

[struggle4progress]

20. If nobody is being disqualified, then there is no impediment and

there are consequently no court costs and legal fees.

If people really aren't running because they can't afford the costs and fees, then it must be the case that candidates would actually find themselves disqualified, if they tried to run, since the costs and fees would only be necessary if someone were disqualified and tried to take it to court. And of course, anyone who attempted to file and was disqualified for religious reasons would not automatically be compelled to pursue the matter further, hence cannot complain that they did not file because they could not afford court costs and legal fees. So if there's really a problem, there should be an ongoing record of disqualification.

"I didn't run because I couldn't afford the court costs and legal fees" is just a bullshit excuse if such disqualifying clauses haven't been enforced in the forty years since SCOTUS ruled such clauses unconstitutional.

[cosmik debris]

22. That's just nonsense

see post #19

[struggle4progress]

45. OK, so there's one example from ten years ago.

[beam me up scottie]

26. So according to you, black people aren't persecuted because it's illegal?

Just when I think ignorance has peaked in this forum...

[cosmik debris]

28. And Hispanics aren't deterred from voting unless

They actually get deported at the polls. Sheeesh!

[beam me up scottie]

30. Why yes!

According to the op, we're just one big happy family here in the United States of Jesusland.

[cosmik debris]

44. Supporting the Republican position on voter intimidation!

It must be painful for the OP to be outed as a closet Republican.

(Does that violate rule #3?)

[struggle4progress]

55. Tsk! Tsk! Such words never crossed my lips.

[cosmik debris]

60. That is certainly the implication of your diatribe

That a threat doesn't count unless there is a follow through on the threat. But threats do have an impact. They have an impact on Hispanic voters who fear deportation, and they have an impact on atheist who might wish to run for office.

[struggle4progress]

46. Surely you can do better than trying to put such words in my mouth

[beam me up scottie]

58. Your words: "If nobody is being disqualified, then there is no impediment"

[struggle4progress]

71. Why, BMUS! And I thought you were part of the evidence-based crowd!

A claim that atheists can't run for office in this country is a claim that needs to be supported by evidence. SCOTUS ruled such restrictions unconstitutional forty years ago, and so far this collection of threads has produced one case, settled about a decade ago, where a fellow in SC won a suit on the issue. In discussing that case, I provided a link indicating that the remaining states don't enforce such provisions. If you want to claim that these restrictions are currently active, then there should be some evidence to support that claim.

I may be entirely wrong, of course, but I suspect the problem is different than ballot access: it seems likely that enough idiot voters will disapprove, of any candidate who disavows religious commitments, to prevent the candidate's election. This is disgusting, of course, and does not reflect well on the voters, in particular showing a definite irrational prejudice, but that's really distinct from atheists not being allowed to run for or hold office.

[beam me up scottie]

74. Fact: Discrimination was written into state constitutions and still remains.

Fact: Discrimination exists even when it's not legislated.

You ordered it, choke it down.

[struggle4progress]

118. We've been over this territory. Except for ChinaCat's post and

and example from a decade ago, both in SC, no evidence has been produced that these restrictions are enforced.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=97059&mesg_id=97168

[beam me up scottie]

121. Yes, we have. Discrimination doesn't exist because you can't see it.

Keep digging.

[MindPilot]

23. Seven states' Constitutions exclude Atheists from public office

by requiring a belief in god. One of them--TN IIRC--will not allow a non-believer to testify in court.

And the simple fact is that no out of the closet Atheist would ever get elected. We are the least trusted minority there is. When there can even be a survey that asks that question persecution has already occurred.

[struggle4progress]

48. The question is then: are these provisions enforced?

So far, I've seen one example from ten years years and provided a link saying that at that time, the remaining states did not enforce the provision.

[cosmik debris]

49. Your position is the same as the Republican position

The Republican position on voter intimidation is the same as your position on candidate intimidation. Are you happy?

[beam me up scottie]

59. Yep: Discrimination doesn't exist because they can't see it.

Where have I heard that before...

[Warpy]

157. Yes, church attendance is down, overall

but those fundy megachurches are still picking up bored people who want to feel self righteous. Since the fundies are the bullies, we've got a large population who are terrified to admit to being non churchgoers or <gasp!> unbelievers.

That's why those laws are on the books and that's why there's so much lip service to old time religion in this country. People are afraid NOT to be religious.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Don't tell the various Christians drama queens that atheists are persecuted.

Go to ANY knuckledragger discussion board and you'll find endless whining that Christians are persecuted in the U.S. They bitch and moan and carry on. It's the most amusing discourse there is.

On one occasion, I engaged this guy who claimed that college campuses were particularly horrible about religious suppression. I pointed out that every campus tends to have at least one and often half a dozen chapels or other religious building right on campus. He said they were empty shells of a bygone day. When I gave him a web page listing over 100 religious organizations (over 75% of which were Christian) on our campus, his reply was that these organizations would be unnecessary if our campus didn't despise Christians so much. I really had no way to counter that kind of paranoid babbling.

So, are atheists persecuted? They might think so, but I'm not so sure.

[cosmik debris]

8. How about spray painting crosses on my home and car

Is that persecution or just mischief?

[More Than A Feeling]

17. "Persecution of Christians" is code for

"We are losing and have lost our unearned social privilege and imagined superiority that came at the expense of groups we don't like. How dare you expect us do unto others as we would have done unto us?" At least, this is the case in the United States. In other places, Christian minorities do indeed have legitimate claims.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

203. Wow, having read

all the posts on this thread I have come to realize, once again, what bile there is between folks of opposing views on this board.

We're all victims. We're all victimizers. Some of us appear to prefer one role to the other. Some of us are professionals at one or the other, or both, according to the situation. And none of it does a God-damned bit of good except to alienate each other even more.

We're all people.

Peace

"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

[More Than A Feeling]

204. I don't like to see our religion used as justification for the domination of others.

and I certainly don't want it to sanctify such domination. I don't call that view bile, I call it justice. Religion is illegitimate grounds for taking social privilege at the expense of hated groups.

Frankly, I think this has been a very civil thread, all things considered. Not a single deleted post.

[Drum]

10. Atheists are marginalized in the US, at the very least.

Other governments must scratch their heads and wonder what the hell is going on in our country...:eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

24. Do you enjoy beating your wife?

Yet another flamebait thread intended to give believers the opportunity to piss on DU atheists, What a shock. :eyes:


According to the http://www.answers.com/Persecute">dictionary, your behaviour qualifies:

per·se·cute (pûr'sĭ-kyūt')

tr.v., -cut·ed, -cut·ing, -cutes.

1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.

2. To annoy persistently; bother.

Following in the footsteps of your ancestors who have done the same and worse for thousands of years, eh?


My, how http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_christianpersecution.htm">christian of you.

[cosmik debris]

35. Don't waste your time with dictionary definitions

We discovered this morning that the only dictionaries that S4P will tolerate are those inspired by God.

Wordsmyth.net = Holy word

Merriam Webster = Satan incarnate!

[benddem]

25. I've never seen any of the things listed

except being subject to proselytizing. I had a huge fight at the Disabled Vets meeting. We had this chaplain who was a real fundie and always preaching. He almost caused a riot at a Catholic funeral. We oozed him out of the position, but the new chaplain couldn't continue in the position and beelzebub returned. Long story. It came down from the state that there are to be no prayers with the mention of Jesus or Jesus Christ. When I told the fundie this...he became Irate, then somehow switched it to me being responsible when I said that as an atheist I didn't like to hear those prayers. He ruined the evening. I hate it when I have to be somewhere and they start in on praying. I sucked it in for the DAV cause it is an important organization...but one of us is going to have to go.

[beam me up scottie]

29. 1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1598933&mesg_id=1598933

[beam me up scottie]

31. 2

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=91841

[MindPilot]

34. Now BMUS, it's not nice to poke facts at the Christians

Eddie Tabash (I think I'm spelling that right) is another name that comes to mind.

And isn't there a reward being offered for anyone who can produce the name of an out Atheist who's recently held or currently holds national office?

[beam me up scottie]

32. 3

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901055.html

[struggle4progress]

64. Has the "Public Expression of Religion Act" passed the Senate?

[beam me up scottie]

67. Has the US Constitution been amended to ban gay marriage yet?

So, according to you, discrimination/persecution doesn't exist unless it's legislated?



Spoken like a true benefactor and recipient of christian privilege. :patriot:

[struggle4progress]

132. The situations are not really parallel. Here is the act you referenced:

109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2679

To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney's fees.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
...
A BILL

To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney's fees.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN LAWSUITS AGAINST STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS.

(a) Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights- Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a)' before the first sentence; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.'.

(b) Attorneys Fees- Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `However, no fees shall be awarded under this subsection with respect to a claim described in subsection (b) of section nineteen hundred and seventy nine.'. http://www.theorator.com/bills109/hr2679.html

It's a terrible act, of course. It was intended to limit lawsuits against the establishment of religion, by eliminating attorneys' fees for plaintiffs who wanted to keep church and state separate. In this sense, it was an attack on all of us who want a completely secular state. But it certainly is not an assault on atheists in the same sense that the Federal Marriage Amendment would be an assault on gays.

[beam me up scottie]

33. 4

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050802/2religion.htm

[struggle4progress]

66. OK. So some idiot owners restrict who can meet in their cafes.

I agree it's silly and stupid, and when I encounter such prejudice I stop patronizing the business.

[beam me up scottie]

69. Nothing to say about the other 12?

Or are you searching for a website that lists apologetics' top twenty facts proving discrimination and persecution of atheists doesn't exist?

[beam me up scottie]

36. 5

http://atheism.about.com/od/attacksonatheism/p/AtheistBigotry.htm

[MindPilot]

37. 6

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=122

[beam me up scottie]

40. !

:)

[MindPilot]

42. 6.5

just trying to help....:P

[struggle4progress]

78. The lack of obvious atheists in Congressional offices may simply ..

.. reflect a basic political principle, which is: never take a stand you don't have to take.

It probably is true that an avowed atheist is unelectable to the Presidency at present, just as an avowed Catholic was unelectable prior to 1960, and of course this is ridiculous. And the use of religion for political campaigning is disgusting, on any number of levels.

But some of those who adopt the point of view that religious stances are completely irrelevant to high office, may simply never say much on the subject at all: in particular, why give people buzzwords to buzz about if there's no upside? In my view, none of this religious language belongs in political campaigns anyway: neither the avowed Christian stuff nor any of the rest.

[beam me up scottie]

84. So it's our fault? If we shut up and stay in the closet we won't be discriminated against?

W will be proud. :patriot:

[struggle4progress]

92. Nope. Not what I said.

[beam me up scottie]

96. Your words: "never take a stand you don't have to take."

why give people buzzwords to buzz about if there's no upside?

Your "don't ask don't tell" version of tolerance sucks.

[struggle4progress]

101. It's common political advice: decide what your real objectives are,

and don't get sidetracked. I'm merely suggesting that there may be people in Congress who fully believe in the separation of Church and State, in the sense that religious controversies are irrelevant to the secular work of the State, and who pick their fights.

[beam me up scottie]

103. Right. In the military, it's called "Don't ask, don't tell"

Keep digging.

[struggle4progress]

149. If one believes in a secular society and separation of church and state,

it's unclear why one would want to introduce religious beliefs or nonbeliefs into a political context anyway. I think I've said that clearly more than once now.

Of course, ideally, one should be able to say freely I'm Jewish or I'm Catholic or I'm atheist or I'm Muslim without political impact, to the extent that such statements reflect self-identity, but frankly I don't understand why more politicians don't simply say, "This is irrelevant. I'm not running for a religious office."

[cosmik debris]

151. "but frankly I don't understand"

The understatement of the year!

[beam me up scottie]

39. 7

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/256589.htm

[Realityhack]

144. Thanks BMUS

Great link. Lets see if the OP can incoherently argue against that one.

[cosmik debris]

148. The OP has defined persecution to exclude discrimination,

threats, and anything else that complicates his premise that atheists have a peachy keen time so that he will not have to respond to trivial things like this.

[struggle4progress]

194. Here's an INS ruling:

109 F.3d 399

STEFAN BUCUR, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. GABRIELA ROSUS, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. GHEORGHE DRAGOS, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2008, No. 96-2043, No. 96-2190
January 13, 1997, Argued—March 26, 1997, Decided

... he was the victim of discrimination on account of his nationality. But discrimination is not persecution. Sharif v. INS, 87 F.3d 932, 935 (7th Cir. 1996); Bastanipour v. INS, 980 F.2d 1129, 1133 (7th Cir. 1992); Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir. 1995) ...

http://www.projectposner.org/case/1997/109F3d399/


And here's what a guide to immigration law says:

Persecution ... The term is not defined in the U.S. asylum statute. However, it has been defined by U.S. courts to mean "a threat to the life or freedom of, or the infliction of suffering or harm upon, those who differ in a way regarded as offensive." Generally, such severe forms of harm as imprisonment, torture, and rape as well as death threats are thought of as constituting persecution. Whether less serious actions, such as those thought of as harassment or discrimination, should be considered to be persecution are decided on a case-by-case basis ... http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/glossary/

[cosmik debris]

200. Wonderful!

I assume you tried a hundred dictionaries and could not find one restrictive enough for your preconceived notion, but this one doesn't do you any better.

"a threat to the life or freedom of..." By your own definition, threats to my freedom are persecution. And a threat to my freedom to run for office in Texas is therefore persecution. Likewise any threat to me based on my atheism is also persecution. I'm glad we can put that to rest! And I am glad that you were opened minded enough to provide a definition that proved you wrong.

[struggle4progress]

212. You requested definition, drew analogy to immigration, and complained of my distinction between ...

... between discrimination and persecution, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=97059&mesg_id=97249
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=97059&mesg_id=97090
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=97059&mesg_id=97243

So I provided examples from immigration law that show distinction between discrimination and persecution. I personally have some dislike of the way immigration judges sometimes make such distinctions, but your alleged inability to file as a candidate for public office (which you've never really bothered to establish) wouldn't count in an immigration court as evidence of persecution.

[cosmik debris]

214. What a crock of shit

I never alleged that I was unable to file as a candidate for office. That is your straw man. (and so typical of your fallacy ridden argument style)

I stated and hold firmly to the position that laws against my eligibility to hold office are a threat to my freedom That meets your own definition for persecution. I'm sure that doesn't matter to you because you made up your mind before this discussion started that there was no persecution. But by your own definition--unless you are denying it now--it is clear that persecution is real. In your dream world that may not seem true, but you are a long way from the real world that I live in.

You continue to use the flimsiest of semantic arguments to grind your axe and insult atheists. I'm not sure why you are being so hateful, but I find it tiresome.

[struggle4progress]

215. You seem to have claimed repeatedly atheists can't run for public office without

extensive court costs and legal fees:

#14 Atheists have to hire a lawyer and pay court costs. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=97059&mesg_id=97082
#12 ... who has the money to fight it in court? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=97059&mesg_id=97078
#15 What about people who decline to run because they can't afford the court cost and legal fees? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=97059&mesg_id=97083
#60 But threats do have an impact ... on atheist who might wish to run for office. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=97059&mesg_id=97133

Now you say: "I never alleged that I was unable to file as a candidate for office." If there is no impediment to your filing as a candidate for office, why all the noise about required and prohibitively expensive "court costs and legal fees"?

[cosmik debris]

216. And you complained that I accidentally insulted one person

And you turn around and insult all atheist in this forum intentionally. Could you be any more self-righteous, sanctimonious, and hypocritical? I'll bet you can!

I don't have time for any more of your insults.

[struggle4progress]

163. Child custody cases are notoriously messy.

The major body of your link is two emails (from people describing their own child custody experiences -- which are unreliable as being reports from emotionally involved parties) plus material from Volokh, which is actually a more general piece on first amendment issues in child custody, with the link provided in the post by charlie, where I have responded.

[beam me up scottie]

41. 8

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/its_good_to_know_how_much_were.php

[struggle4progress]

169. Link to the poll doesn't work, so it's impossible to know what it actually said

[beam me up scottie]

43. 9

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/258330.htm

[struggle4progress]

170. The Republican Party of Texas, of course, is Dimson's party

Lots of us recognize that they're dangerous lunatics: basically, they hate everybody.

Fortunately, this means that they're so consumed with hating that they can't really focus their hatred very directly and therefore they spend their energy in corrupt cronyism and electiona-rigging &c

[beam me up scottie]

47. 10

http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=mc&c=mv

[struggle4progress]

61. The Boy Scouts are persecuting you?

[beam me up scottie]

70. Your question was "Are atheists persecuted in the United States?"

Having a hard time swallowing what you ordered?

Choke it down like a big boy.

[struggle4progress]

73. So the Boy Scouts are persecuting atheists?

[beam me up scottie]

75. According to the dictionary you're all so fond of, yes.

per·se·cute (pûr'sĭ-kyūt')

tr.v., -cut·ed, -cut·ing, -cutes.

1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.

2. To annoy persistently; bother.

Choke it down.

[cosmik debris]

83. !

:rofl:

[struggle4progress]

85. A definition is not evidence. Provide material facts.

[beam me up scottie]

87. I've given you 15 so far, actually. Choke 'em down.

[struggle4progress]

150. Yes. Well, we're speaking here of #10. I don't see the persecution.

[cosmik debris]

152. C'mon, we're still waiting for the Holy Dictionary verse

Explaining exactly what you want to call persecution. Until the Word is handed down from on high we can't possibly understand the majesty and righteousness of your argument.

[cosmik debris]

90. This very morning you used the dictionary definition

as evidence that I was name-calling. Do you get dizzy when you spin around that rapidly?

[beam me up scottie]

97. I don't know if he's dizzy,

but after reading his list of excuses why none of these examples qualify, I'm sure nauseous.

[cosmik debris]

102. We shouldn't take it personally

But post #52 by charlie was better than anything I posted and he didn't even get a harrumph from s4p. I think charlie is being persecuted.

[More Than A Feeling]

104. Sad that all I could come up with was the Delaware

Jewish analogy to start things off. My Christian privilege is showing. It isn't vital to my daily life that I know the things you all have posted. Thanks for creating this resource.

[beam me up scottie]

109. No, not at all. And thank you.

Speaking up for other minorities on DU proves you're a true liberal. :)

[beam me up scottie]

106. Oh, I'm quite enjoying watching him squirm.

I wonder how it will end.

Do you think he'll keep digging until he hits China or will he actually admit that he's wrong?

[More Than A Feeling]

107. We can find out where he will go if he keeps digging using this map!

http://map.pequenopolis.com/ (via Pharyngula)

[beam me up scottie]

110. ROFLMAO!!!

That's great!

Bookmarked, and thanks!

[cosmik debris]

108. I thought "choke it down"

was the new "keep digging". I fall behind sometimes.

[beam me up scottie]

111. Well,

I don't want to discriminate against "Keep digging", so I'll use both! :evilgrin:

[China_cat]

88. Yes.

They take public money but do not allow atheists in their organization...no matter what their age.

[struggle4progress]

99. Top court rejects Sea Scouts' appeal on rent subsidy

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 17, 2006

The U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal Monday by a Boy Scouts affiliate that lost its rent break from the city of Berkeley because the Scouts exclude gays and atheists.

The court, without comment, let stand a California Supreme Court ruling this March that said a city is entitled to subsidize only organizations that comply with its anti-discrimination rules.

The case involved the Sea Scouts, a nonprofit that teaches sailing, carpentry and plumbing to teenagers. The organization used a berth at the Berkeley Marina without charge from the 1930s until 1998, when the City Council eliminated rent subsidies for nonprofits that discriminated on the basis of religion, sexual orientation and other categories.

The Sea Scouts, the only group affected by the change, have been charged $500 a month in rent since refusing to promise that they would admit gays as members or leaders. The organization filed suit in 1999, arguing that it should not be forced to surrender its rights as the price of public funding ...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/17/BAG7ULQJ701.DTL

So, go after their subsidies ...

[beam me up scottie]

105. And THAT proves they don't discriminate?

:rofl:

Weaker by the minute...

[struggle4progress]

119. It shows you can win when going after their subsidies.

[beam me up scottie]

122. WTF? Win WHAT????

Equality?

Tolerance?

How can we "win" that in court when we can't even get it HERE?

Your posts in this thread are ignorant and intolerant.

You casually dismissed every example posted here, even the painful personal experiences of your fellow liberals.

And for what?

So that you can "score" one against DU atheists?

Well, congratulations, bubba, you won.

I give up.

[struggle4progress]

162. China Cat #88 complained BSA excluded atheists but got public subsidies

So, going after the subsidies is a winnable fight.

[beam me up scottie]

95. Yep-gays too.Care to start a thread in the GLBT forum telling them they're not discriminated against

Or is it just atheists you are trying to marginalize?

[trotsky]

133. I have a son.

He can't join the Boy Scouts. He is an honest, bright, determined, and caring little boy. But he can't join, because he doesn't believe in gods.

Of course, even without their anti-atheist stance, I wouldn't let him participate due to their anti-homosexual stance. The Boy Scouts even had their discrimination affirmed in court!

[struggle4progress]

141. So it's a homophobic organization you understandably wouldn't let him join

That's fine. That makes sense. Presumably you're not sending him off to a fundamentalist church on Sundays, either.

I find it silly that the Boy Scouts disallow atheists and gays. But it's hardly persecution.

[trotsky]

142. Silly.

Yes, silly. And hateful. And a bunch of terrible words. Oh, my.

But scouting is, like it or not, the beginnings of social networking. The scouting table has a prominent place at school club functions. Boys who aren't in scouts are asked why they aren't.

I know that your personal definition of persecution apparently means something like how Jews and homosexuals (and probably quite a few atheists) were treated in Nazi Germany. For you, it seems it isn't really persecution unless it involves a gas chamber or a lynch mob.

May I ask what your purpose in starting this thread was? Did you hope to foster some kind of understanding? Because the result was to create a lot of hostility, which you have intentionally stoked with your follow-up posts. As you go about struggling "4" progress, how do you suppose you're going to accomplish this by pissing people off?

[struggle4progress]

147. I'm merely interested in what people think the situation is, what evidence

they can provide for their beliefs, and how they think different issues compare in importance.

[trotsky]

156. Please tell me YOUR definition of "persecution."

Go ahead.

[struggle4progress]

164. Something in the range of the top poll items.

Being preached to is irritating but not persecution; the sixth poll item is iffy and depends on degree. Running you out of town for trying to intimidate by painting crosses on your car would count as persecution. An ashole refusing to hire because you were an atheist would be discrimination; if the asshole then tried to organize other employers not to hire you, that would be persecution. Discrimination is unfair prejudice; persecution brings with it an active intent to injure.

[trotsky]

171. There is nothing in the dictionary definition that requires your elements.

Why are you defining the word in such a way as to restrict its application? What gives you the right to do so?

[cosmik debris]

179. When I used the word obtuse

You demanded an exact dictionary definition. You even insisted on deciding which dictionary the definition could come from. Now you refuse to provide anything other that a self-serving impression of what you want the word persecution to mean. Do you get disoriented when you reverse course that quickly?

Like I said in my first response to you yesterday, it is obvious that you are looking for a fight. It is equally obvious that you are NOT looking for enlightenment or tolerance.

[struggle4progress]

186. "I thought you might be concerned not to insult folk accidentally"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=96984&mesg_id=97056

If you call people obtuse, then according to most definitions, you are calling them stupid. You found that one dictionary provides an alternative interpretation of the word, which many other sources characterize as a misuse; the descriptivist dictionary you chose to cite does not recognize that there is such a thing as misuse of a word. If you do not care whether you insult people by accident, of course, then you are free to insist that your usage of the word as you used it is appropriate; that's up to you. I did not demand a definition from you; I merely pointed out possible untowards effects of your misusage of the word.

But if you are a descriptivist, as shown by your insistent appeal to a descriptivist dictionary, then it is unclear to me why you now object to my showing you by example how I use a word: the descriptivist dictionary to which you appealed earlier does not recognize fixed meanings of words but only usage patterns.

[cosmik debris]

198. And you aren't concerned with how insulting you are being

You anti atheist offense is not even done under the cover of "accidental". It clearly is intentional.

[Sapphocrat]

260. Is it "hardly persecution"?

I dunno about that. Seems to me it's federally-sanctioned persecution, as long as the Commander-in-Chief is also the honorary head of the BSA.

Something stinks in that.

[struggle4progress]

261. Here's the Federal Charter: USC TITLE 36 Subtitle II Part B CHAPTER 309

§ 30901. Organization
(a) Federal Charter.— Boy Scouts of America (in this chapter, the “corporation”) is a body corporate and politic of the District of Columbia.
(b) Domicile.— The domicile of the corporation is the District of Columbia.
(c) Perpetual Existence.— Except as otherwise provided, the corporation has perpetual existence.

§ 30902. Purposes
The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

§ 30903. Governing body
(a) Executive Board.— An executive board composed of citizens of the United States is the governing body of the corporation. The number, qualifications, and term of office of members of the board are as provided in the bylaws. A vacancy on the board shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining members of the board.
(b) Quorum.— The bylaws may prescribe the number of members of the board necessary for a quorum. That number may be less than a majority of the entire board.
(c) Committees.—
(1) The board, by resolution passed by a majority of the entire board, may designate 3 or more members of the board as an executive or governing committee. A majority of the committee is a quorum. The committee, to the extent provided in the resolution or bylaws, may—
(A) exercise the powers of the executive board in managing the activities of the corporation; and
(B) authorize the seal of the corporation to be affixed to papers that may require it.
(2) The board, by majority vote of the entire board, may appoint other standing committees. The standing committees may exercise powers as provided in the bylaws.

§ 30904. Powers
(a) General.— The corporation may—
(1) adopt and amend bylaws and regulations, including regulations for the election of associates and successors;
(2) adopt and alter a corporate seal;
(3) have offices and conduct its activities in the District of Columbia and the States, territories, and possessions of the United States;
(4) acquire and own property as necessary to carry out the purposes of the corporation;
(5) sue and be sued within the jurisdiction of the United States; and
(6) do any other act necessary to carry out this chapter and promote the purpose of the corporation.
(b) Limitations on Exercising Certain Powers.—
(1) The corporation may execute mortgages and liens on the property of the corporation only if approved by a two-thirds vote of the entire executive board at a meeting called for that purpose.
(2) The corporation may dispose in any manner of the whole property of the corporation only with the written consent and affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the corporation.

§ 30905. Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words
The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.

§ 30906. Restrictions
(a) Profit.— The corporation may not operate for pecuniary profit to its members.
(b) Stocks and Dividends.— The corporation may not issue stock or declare or pay a dividend.

§ 30907. Annual and special meetings
(a) Annual Meetings.— The corporation shall hold an annual meeting at a time and place as provided in the bylaws. At the meeting, the annual reports of the officers and executive board shall be presented, and members of the board shall be elected for the next year.
(b) Special Meetings.— Special meetings of the corporation may be called on notice as provided in the bylaws.
(c) Quorum.— The number of members necessary for a quorum at an annual or special meeting shall be prescribed in the bylaws.
(d) Locations.— The members and the executive board may hold meetings and keep the seal and records of the corporation in or outside the District of Columbia.

§ 30908. Annual report
Not later than April 1 of each year, the corporation shall submit a report to Congress on the activities of the corporation during the prior calendar year.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode36/usc_sup_01_36_06_II_08_B_10_309.html

Do I think they should discriminate? No, I think it stinks.

Do I think they should receive any Federal benefits while they discriminate? Absolutely not.

What Federal benefits do they receive from the charter? From the above, it appears they obtain some automatic copyright/trademark protection for their words and emblems, and they get to say they are a Congressionally chartered corporation, which may be a PR advantage but requires them to submit an annual report to Congress -- and not much else. They apparently obtain a few other benefits independent of the Charter.

How is the President their honorary leader? I'd guess the board of directors of the corporation voted to make him that. Big whoopie. You and I could start a corporation called (say) A-holes of America and declare President Bush our honorary leader; I like the idea, but don't expect the organization would get any significant benefits from it.

If you want to go after their Federal charter, fine with me: I'd support the move, but frankly I think it's a waste of time.

[frebrd]

50. Yes to 4, 5, 6 and 7. eom

[charlie]

52. It could also mean

inequality under the application of law. Many decisions in child custody cases are made with regard to a parent's belief, ranging from preference for religious belief amongst otherwise equal factors, to flat out discrimination against the non-believing parent.

Underhill v. Garcia, No. 261651, 2005 WL 3304120, at *2 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2005) noting that "(father) regularly took (son) to church and Sabbath school, taught (him) how to pray and read him Bible stories, while (mother) testified that
she did not regularly attend church and presented no evidence demonstrating any willingness or capacity to attend to religion with (son)."

Sharrow v. Davis, Nos. 244043, 245117, 2003 WL 21699876, at *3 (Mich. Ct. App. July 22, 2003) noting that "(father) never attended church and his older children were not baptized," that "(father) felt (the children) should experience many religions and choose one when they were older," and that though "(mother) did not attend church regularly, she attended periodically and would take all of the children with her."

Carson v. Carson, 401 N.W.2d 632, 635–36 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986) quoting trial court as opining that it "was a little bit dis-traught in finding that there was no particular affiliation (held by either parent) with a church," because "(p)robably 95 percent of the criminals that I see before me come from homes where there’s no . . . established religious affiliation," but concluding that because neither party was religious, "both parties (were) equal" under this factor.

Sims v. Stanfield, No. CA98-1040, 1999 WL 239888, at *3–*4 (Ark. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 1999) noting that lower court based award of custody to father partly on father’s having "'rekindled' a relationship with his church," "regularly attend(ing) services," and providing "a Christian home," but declining on procedural grounds to review this.

Hoskins v. Hoskins, 814 So. 2d 773, 778 (La. Ct. App. 2002) (Peatross, J., dissenting) arguing that, though "the majority . . . is correct in its statement concerning the mother's gambling activities and church attendance, the fact remains that the mother takes the child to church, thus providing spiritual guidance," while "father . . . does not go to church."

In re Marriage of Storlein, 386 N.W.2d 812, 813 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) upholding grant of custody to mother, where lower court cited as one factor in her favor that mother "is a religious person who attends church on a regular basis" and who "would probably provide more constant attention to the children's religious education and training than would (father)," while father "was not a member of any organized religion and did not attend church services."

Weigand v. Houghton, 730 So. 2d 581, 587 (Miss. 1999) noting chancellor's "weighing heavily" as factor in mother's favor that "mother has seen that (the son) is taken to church and undergone religious training, along with the entire family" and that "(the son's) best interest would be served by providing religious training."

Dean v. Dean, 232 S.E.2d 470, 471 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977) noting in prevailing father's favor "(mother's) failure to take (the son) to church and Sunday School was jeopardizing (the son's) spiritual values."

Gancas v. Schultz, 683 A.2d 1207, 1213–14 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996) reversing lower court's transfer of custody from mother to father, based partly on lower court's "fail(ure) to consider 'all factors which legitimately have an effect upon the child's physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being,'" and in particular that while "(m)other . . . takes (daughter) to church whenever (daughter) is with her, (f)ather, an admitted agnostic, does not attend church."

E.A.L. v. J.L.W., 662 A.2d 1109, 1115 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995) reversing trial court's order changing custody from grandparents back to mother, partly because "The record does not support (trial court's) finding that mother has attempted to involve her children in religious instruction. She testified that she took them to church once and the children did not like it. There was no evidence that she has subsequently taken them to church."

Pountain v. Pountain, 503 S.E.2d 757, 761 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998) upholding denial of custody to father whom court described as "agnostic," and stating that "Although the religious beliefs of parents are not dispositive in a child custody dispute, they are a factor relevant to determining the best interest of a child."

Sprague v. Sprague, No. 84, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2947, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 1986) noting that "(t)he father at no time testified . . . that he would see that (the children) attended religious services or otherwise gain proper instruction and growth."

In re F.J.K., 608 S.W.2d 301 (Tex. App. 1980) noting "the mother's neglect of the children's religious upbringing," and "(a)n atheistic philosophy (being) . . . discussed by the new husband to some extent with the daughter, prompting her to advise her nursery school teacher that she was 'not a Christian or a Jew but an atheist'."

Donaldson v. Donaldson, 231 P.2d 607, 608 (Wash. 1951) discussing court order barring plaintiff "from educating . . . the child to become a communist or teaching him a disbelief in . . . God" and ordering plaintiff "to teach the child love and respect for the United States of America," but reversing it on other grounds.

Plenty more here...

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/custody.pdf

[struggle4progress]

161. The Volokh article is interesting but addresses the more general issue of ..

.. whether courts should really regulate free speech in child custody agreements. In these cases, the court's obligation to "the best interests of the child" is certainly vague enough, but I see no obvious way to render the obligation in a more formulaic manner.

The court has the unfortunate task of mediating an unfortunate situation, based on imperfect knowledge, and using (so far as possible) the full wisdom of the judge to adjudicate the matter. It's clear that, judges being human, courts make mistakes -- and also clear that judges being human, they may sometimes craft essentially bullshit excuses for decisions that are really based on intuition.

The Volokh piece is over a hundred pages long, and for the most part it does not really deal with the question of an atheist parent, so perhaps I should assume that you have simply pulled out the examples in the Volokh piece that represent custody decisions allegedly based on religious considerations. But then you have perhaps been selective, since Volokh's discussion includes cases where, for example, the noncustodial parent was forbidden to take the child to religious classes as well.

Volokh's appendix includes cases where the religious parent won the custody case, but there are exceptions. It is impossible to know how careful a job Volokh has done selecting his sample or how exhaustive the sample is. A key point made by Volokh is that certain child custody decisions cannot be made on the basis of reason alone, since there is inadequate knowledge; in such cases, the poor judge stabs at the matter the best s/he knows how, and it is difficult to know to what degree the appendix cases are decided by religious considerations only because the judge had no other idea about how to make a decision -- it's possible that real religious considerations enter from time to time when the judge is at a complete loss as to how to decide between two parents who otherwise seem equally fit (or equally unfit). There is also the possibility, raised by Volokh in the text, that in some cases purely nonreligious considerations led to religious considerations, as for example might happen if the court decided a prior history, of raising the child in a certain religious manner prior to the divorce, constituted a contract to continue such upbringing.

So while Volokh's compilation certainly suggests a bias in favor of the religious parent, it is entirely unclear whether such biases are influencing most child custody cases, some child custody cases, or a mere handful where the court is completely at a loss. It is unclear how much concern the alleged phenomenon merits, unless one understands the numbers.

I should guess that relatively few cases are decided by such considerations, although this would not comfort the atheist parent in a child custody case -- who would still face the possibility that the judge, faced with a toss-up, would be inclined to the religious side. I don't know how to insist that the judge not take into account his/her own beliefs and experiences in such decisions, though: if you know of a way to ensure that such decisions are made fairly, of course, then you should share it.

[cosmik debris]

181. You ignored all 14 examples.

And his larger point that having fewer rights in divorce court is a form of persecution.

I suppose that being deprived of custody of your children doesn't rise to the threshold of persecution by your made-up definition. Obviously you don't have children. And if you do, I sympathize with them.

[struggle4progress]

185. You didn't read the Volokh article and don't know what the article is about. I read it

and commented on it. Nor did you read my response to the article.

[charlie]

219. I'm late

...so perhaps I should assume that you have simply pulled out the examples in the Volokh piece that represent custody decisions allegedly based on religious considerations.

You assumed right, those are germane to the topic. There's nothing alleged about them, they're citations of comparative religiosity in cases where the more religiously observant parent prevailed (save Carson v. Carson, Donaldson v. Donaldson, and Hoskins v Hoskins, where Judge Peatross' "but she goes to church!" dissent was so mind-roastingly stupid, I had to include it).**

But then you have perhaps been selective, since Volokh's discussion includes cases where, for example, the noncustodial parent was forbidden to take the child to religious classes as well.

Yes, I was selective. In those cases, prohibitions were applied to parents whose religion conflicted with the custodial parent's religion. Right or wrong, those decisions aren't rulings with a bias in favor or against religion, they're sectarian rulings. (I'd like to see comparable cases where a custodial parent's a-religiosity/lesser observance is protected against the spouse's religion)

The court has the unfortunate task of mediating an unfortunate situation, based on imperfect knowledge, and using (so far as possible) the full wisdom of the judge to adjudicate the matter. It's clear that, judges being human, courts make mistakes...

That's a description of a judge's lot in all types of cases. Unfortunate. Imperfect. Judges are human, courts make mistakes. Being human, they also act with intent to bias when they know they shouldn't.

...and also clear that judges being human, they may sometimes craft essentially bullshit excuses for decisions that are really based on intuition.

And they may sometimes craft essentially bullshit excuses for decisions that are really based on intentional prejudice.

It is impossible to know how careful a job Volokh has done selecting his sample or how exhaustive the sample is.

Yes. I will point out though, that Volokh is no secular crusader. He's a darling of the conservative set. In church-state matters, he's often more Scalia than Souter. And he's noticed a problem compelling enough to address.

There is also the possibility, raised by Volokh in the text, that in some cases purely nonreligious considerations led to religious considerations, as for example might happen if the court decided a prior history, of raising the child in a certain religious manner prior to the divorce, constituted a contract to continue such upbringing.

Yes, that's possible. But if he included any among the discriminatory examples, he's pulling a fast one.

As for the rest, I'm not being dismissive, but it's variations on your earlier themes. Imperfect/inadequate knowledge, unfortunate situations, not amenable to strict reasoning, vulnerable to human mistakes, "the poor judge stabs", "the judge had no other idea", "the judge is at a complete loss", etc. A thicket of qualifiers and speculations wrapped around an apologia for court rulings. Yes, your many possible scenarios are possible, likely even. You've no comment on the blatantly egregious examples, though? There's plenty enough of them.

So, what is the threshold for concern? What is the mass that turns a string of aberrations into a systemic problem? If judges reasoned with a preference for vegetarianism or Judaism, I'd say it would be pretty low. If they were as proactively interested in a child's exposure to skepticism and empiricism vis a vis religion, it'd be lower still. (That a single case from Michael Newdow can crowd out headlines, spark a flurry of legislative proposals, and assemble most members of Congress on the Capitol steps is a pretty good indication of the lay of the land)

I don't know how to insist that the judge not take into account his/her own beliefs and experiences in such decisions, though: if you know of a way to ensure that such decisions are made fairly, of course, then you should share it.

Should I? C'mon, that sounds suspiciously like one of those diversionary challenges (Think the war was a mistake? Let's hear YOUR plan to end it).

Looking at the rest of the thread, I see that I haven't met your criteria for persecution. I cede that I haven't made the case.

** The decision that prompted Peatross' dissent:
Hoskins v. Hoskins, 814 So. 2d 773, 778 (La. Ct. App. 2002) noting that "(t)he mother argues that she is the better moral influence for (child) because she regularly attends church and the father does not," but disregarding this because "the mother's regular church attendance is a relatively recent occurrence" and because "her alleged adherence to her religious faith—which disapproves of gambling—has not prevented her or the stepfather from spending considerable time and money at casinos"; id.

[struggle4progress]

223. I'm really not arguing that judges may not sometimes be unfair or that shouldn't

be a matter for concern, if one actually knew how to address the matter. I think this should be clear enough from my post. But frankly I have no idea how to suggest a reasonably crafted rule that would cover even a good fraction of the cases: surely someone, who doesn't think the system is working as well as could expected, can reasonably be asked to propose some alternative, since if no alternative is really possible there is little point in complaining of the reality -- and it doesn't seem to me that asking for any ideas in this direction is the same as ridiculing any concern, since the alternative is simply to cluck one's tongue (Tsk! Tsk!) and be satisfied with that.

I did read the Volokh article, beginning to end, including looking over the extensive appendices, and it really is impossible to know what to make of most of the examples because not enough information is provided: the fact that religious considerations enter at all may be grossly discriminatory in some cases (for example, if the judge is throwing up his/her hands and simply looking for arbitrary grounds for a decision) and may be natural enough in others (in the case, for example, that the court views as contractual an earlier decision by the parents to raise the child a certain way).

I've known more than one person involved in a child custody battle, and frankly the behavior of the parties can be so bizarre as to tax anyone's patience and wisdom. So the fact, that Volokh's appendices in general indicate only that religious behavior was given some consideration and do not usually indicate why, makes me reluctant to claim to see the facts of the cases from half-sentence excerpts. It is certainly clear, from the advice of an attorney cited in the text, that religiosity has been considered in a number of cases. Nevertheless, surely Volokh's cases reflect only a very small fraction of recent custody disputes, which fact leaves open all manner of questions.

I certainly don't want to dismiss what may be a legitimate concern -- but in many cases the issues may have to be addressed in other ways. If, for example, one finds prejudiced judges on the bench, then perhaps they can sometimes be removed for their behaviors in other cases, child custody cases being such involved and particular matters that they may not lend themselves naturally to such removals.

[beam me up scottie]

54. 11

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=16937

[struggle4progress]

123. That hardly counts as persecution of atheists. It shows a significant

lack of consideration for other people's views, of course; it speaks rather ill of the school district that the matter had to go to court; and the students who stood to pray show, I think, a certain pious self-righteousness.

It may be tedious to listen to such displays if one is not sympathetic to them, and irritating to be forcibly subjected to them, if one is not inclined to the view represented, but the whole exercise (silly as it is) takes about a minute and involves no threat whatsoever of the sort I would call persecution.

[beam me up scottie]

130. I already told you, you win. Now leave me the fuck alone.

I put up with bigots all fucking week at work, I used to think I could come here to get away from them.


I was wrong.

[Finder]

174. Sounds a lot like how the Germans felt in 1939...n/t

[struggle4progress]

184. Shame on you. By 1939, Germany had established such concentration camps

as Dachau and Buchenwald; and political opponents of the regime had regularly been killed to intimidate the population.

I've never liked public prayers in secular settings. I've always found them offensive and refused to participate in them. But irritating as I find them, being subjected to them gives me nothing like the experience of Germans in 1939.

[Finder]

205. But most citizens refused to believe it...

and defended the nazis in some cases. That was my point.

Granted, the ignorance was mostly due to nazi propaganda targeted towards them.

[struggle4progress]

208. DECREE, 28 FEBRUARY 1933 ...

Pursuant to article 48, paragraph 2 of the German constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the State: Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice.4 Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association and interferences with the secrecy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house searches, 'orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed ...


The rest of 1933 was equally exciting: imprisonment without trial was legalized, the government assumed control of newspapers and radio, the Enabling Act allowed the Cabinet to pass laws without Parliament, non-Nazi political parties were dissolved and criminalized. Special courts were established to try political opponents. Tens of thousands of trade unionists were arrested. Internment of homosexuals in concentration camps began. The disenfranchisement of the Jewish community began.

This was 1933, you understand. Everything went downhill from there. Anybody who didn't know what was going on by 1939 was just criminally stupid.

[Finder]

227. But propaganda was used...

and it was effective. Whether it was denial, ignorance or agreement of the policies the people followed.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm

[struggle4progress]

241. By 1934, political opposition could earn the death penalty. Everyone ..

.. knew this.

[Finder]

242. Not sure what you think I am arguing about...many post-war...

interviews with the citizenry showed they thought many of the charges were lies from the enemy or didn't know about the persecutions.

Hell, if Bush decreed the same tomorrow many of our own citizens would not know or be interested in what it meant.

[struggle4progress]

247. I think you were arguing that atheists, who were subjected to several hundred high school students

standing to recite a prayer, were as oppressed as Nazi opponents in 1939 Germany.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=97059&mesg_id=97127
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=97059&mesg_id=97127

The post-war interviews with Germans about what they thought was happening are typically bullshit, of course. People, who lived within sight of concentration camps where trainloads of people were brought to be killed and burned, regularly said "Oh, we had no idea." The smell of burning flesh is unforgettable, and the stench of death from such a place would be overwhelming. The postwar Germans were just habitually lying to try to protect themselves, as they had lied to try to protect themselves throughout the entire dozen years before

[Finder]

250. No, that is not what I am arguing at all...

Perhaps I should have used the internment of Japanese Americans as an example.

Why did our citizens allow the civil rights of fellow citizens to be stripped?

Were Japanese americans persecuted prior to internment?

[TRYPHO]

211. Oh dear....

On my other forum, it is well accepted "law" these days, that the first person to resort to use of the Nazi party, Germany, the War or any related paraphernalia therof, LOSES THE ARGUMENT right there.

TRYPHO

[Finder]

230. Well I am not trying to win any argument...

and feel examples from that era need to be used at times.

The rule sucks in cases where discussions of civil rights or gov propaganda and tyranny need examples.

In discussions of persecution, especially when someone is denying persecution exists, Germany is the best example from modern times.(we have the documentation to back up the assertations)

[beam me up scottie]

63. 12

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050111-101004-3771r.htm

[struggle4progress]

166. O joy! The Moonie press reports on Dimson's "faith"!

Frankly, the fellow is nauseating, but I fail to see how the nausea he induces is a special persecution of atheists.

[beam me up scottie]

65. 13

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

[struggle4progress]

167. Yes, GHWBush also made offensive statements. He's an asshole.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

68. yes - on a personal private level

I've been told I am an "evil woman", "keeping their father away from the Truth of Jesus' love", "Damned to hell", "Heathen" (at about 90 decibels from about 2 feet away), hit in the shoulder by the same crazed woman, and physically attacked by her teenaged children as I was trying to run out to my car with my luggage and get the hell out of their house. The husband of this woman made fun of me when I was crying while trying to explain why we should be nice to others,(and quoting Lin Yutang) no matter what our beliefs are.

Should have left a lot sooner but I was attempting reason with them. That was my mistake. They're ignorant bullies. These are folks who would be young in-laws if I was married to my sweetie.

I can't handle their Xtian love. They're bullies.

I had so many incidences of my sweetie's family erupting at me and him for no discernible reason (other non-religious volcanoes on two legs screaming at me on other occasions) that when we crossed the Red River and stopped at the first Oklahoma rest stop, I had to go in the bathroom and cry because I was paranoid. I guess that's post traumatic stress or something.

However, after hanging out with non-relatives of this person, who are nice people and don't erupt uncontrollably, I have gotten over this.

[cosmik debris]

72. Welcome to DU and welcome to the Arena

Watch your step. There are a lot of poop piles around here.

[beam me up scottie]

112. Yes, welcome to DU.

That's quite a story, I'm so sorry you had to go through all that.

Proves the point about "brave" atheists, though.

Stick around, there are lots of cool liberal believers here, too.

:)

[beam me up scottie]

80. 14

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/024799.htm

[beam me up scottie]

82. 15

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071501032_pf.html

[struggle4progress]

168. Good read on intolerance and anti-semitism in the military

But notice that: "Weinstein ... has become convinced that the conflict is not between Christians and Jews, but between aggressively evangelical Christians and everybody else"

[beam me up scottie]

115. Well okay then. Let's run down your list of comments regarding the examples posted here:

but how commonly are people run out of town?

It's impossible to know what to make of that story

a telling of the tale by a disinterested party would have been more useful

but it seems likely that none would survive a court challenge

I'm doubting whether such laws are currently enforced

but if the provision is unenforceable, most jurisdictions wouldn't waste their time and money trying to enforce it

If nobody is being disqualified, then there is no impediment

OK, so there's one example from ten years ago

but I suspect the problem is different than ballot access

are these provisions enforced?

So some idiot owners restrict who can meet in their cafes

The lack of obvious atheists in Congressional offices may simply reflect a basic political principle

The Boy Scouts are persecuting you?

So the Boy Scouts are persecuting atheists?

A definition is not evidence. Provide material facts.

Has the "Public Expression of Religion Act" passed the Senate

Except for ChinaCat's post and and example from a decade ago, both in SC, no evidence has been produced that these restrictions are enforced.

I just say "affirm" rather than "swear" and leave off the last bit, when confronted with such oaths. Big deal.




Wonderful.

The last time I witnessed someone trying that hard to dismiss evidence of discrimination was when W made his famous remarks about the interracial dating policy at Bob Jones U.

[cosmik debris]

129. I'm gonna pout and hold my breath until charlie gets an answer

to his post. I'm turning blue. Can't you see?

[trotsky]

136. bmus, you already know that you're my hero.

But I'll repeat it again anyway. :)

[struggle4progress]

145. Let's see where we are on the serious issues so far:

Among the genuine persecution phenomena, there are votes for:

Atheists are regularly attacked or murdered or their houses burned
Atheists are commonly subjected to harassment by some government authorities
Vandalism of atheists' property and/or veiled threats against atheists occur frequently
Lots of businesses will fire you if they find out you're an atheist
Some communities and businesses give atheists a hard time

No evidence has been supplied for the first one: Atheists are regularly attacked or murdered or their houses burned. I don't find it at all impossible to believe that such attacks may occur sometimes, but if they do I expect they're rare. If I'm wrong, surely someone can supply evidence in this forum so inhabited by those who proclaim their devotion to evidence.

For the second one Atheists are commonly subjected to harassment by some government authorities, we have one story from an Oklahoma DUer (claiming a false assault charge was motivated by anti-atheist prejudice, which may well be true but which is not supported by any account from a disinterested party), two stories from South Carolina (one from a decade ago and a second from a DUer's more recent experience, both of which involve notary license applications which were modified to indicate the applicant did not wish to express a belief in a deity), and a claim by a DUer to have been removed from a federal jury pool for complaining of the oath form (it being completely unclear from the description provided whether the removal was actually for the stated cause, or as an allowed challenge by one of the attorneys, or for other reason). One should expect to be able to provide more evidence if such events were really common, given that atheists form perhaps a fifth of the population. The point has been raised repeatedly that a small number of states continue to carry laws on the books that prohibit atheists from holding public office, although as far as I can tell, with the possible exception of South Carolina, these laws are no longer enforced.

For the third, Vandalism of atheists' property and/or veiled threats against atheists occur frequently we have essentially one poster claiming this experience. Again, if there were much of this occurring, we should be able to document it.

For the fourth, Lots of businesses will fire you if they find out you're an atheist, I've certainly heard more than one story over the years about this sort of thing happening, and I've heard a handful of people over the years say they wouldn't hire atheists, so it's clear to me this happens sometimes.

For the last, Some communities and businesses give atheists a hard time, we have a medley of examples such as students at a graduation ceremony rising up to recite a prayer, after being told by a court that the ceremony could not involve prayer, a case where a cafe owner didn't want an atheist group to meet in the cafe, the fact that the Boy Scouts discriminate against atheists and receive some government funding, and a reasonable deduction from the ugly Delaware case some time ago that if the situation was not good there for a Jewish family it probably wasn't rosy there for atheists either.

A number of posts want to emphasize that there is some discrimination against atheists, as indicated by the lack of declared atheists in Congress, or by the fact that the Republicans are willing to try to make a Texas candidate's alleged atheism a campaign issue, or &c&c.

[cosmik debris]

146. You are still ignoring charlie

And apparently you have to be flayed with a cat-o-nine-tails to reach the threshold of persecution, so by fixing your semantic argument, you always win! Congratulations!

[struggle4progress]

153. I've described my take on that several times now, once in the post

you just responded to. The story may be true, and as I've said elsewhere the description of his daughter's experience sounds credible to me. But generally, I try to form opinions of events which don't reflect only the view of one participant. This I call, "trying to be fair." If you have a description of those events that really originates from a disinterested third party, I'll look it over. Otherwise, whether I believe it or not, it's entirely useless as political evidence.

I don't think my standards are unreasonable: go look at some of the gay rights websites and see to what extent real ongoing prejudice and discrimination against gays can be documented; more generally, look at some of the hate crimes websites and ask about how foreign looking people were treated after 9/11, or what sort of threats have sometimes directed against American Jews or blacks, and then ask yourself how the posts in this thread compare.

[cosmik debris]

154. WTF are you talking about

Charlie provided 14 examples of people being denied custody of their children because their religion was not adequate for the court.

Now I realize that no blood was shed, but a lot of people spent a lot of money to secure rights that they were denied. And they lost. You can call it what you want, but it is certainly unfair and a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

[struggle4progress]

155. Thought you meant Charles Smalkowski.

[cosmik debris]

158. It doesn't really matter

No one could read this thread and conclude that you had an open mind on the subject. You discounted and disparaged any evidence you couldn't deny. And when all else failed you made it into an argument about what persecution really meant. And of course you held that definition to yourself so that no one could use it against you. Debating on the basis of secret definitions is not exactly worth my time.

Good night.

[struggle4progress]

175. No, he provided cases where religion was considered and the ..

.. custody was awarded to the religiously practicing parent. He did not cite cases in the same article where religion was considered and custody was awarded to the nonpracticing parent or where (for example) the custody order included instruction to the noncustodial parent not to take the child to Bible class.

The article does not cite cases, so far as I can tell, in which the judge determined that one party's religion "religion was not adequate for the court," as you say. In summarizing articles such as Volokh's, perhaps a bit more care is required than you are willing to bestow on understanding the article.

[cosmik debris]

180. More semantic arguments

And no one can dispute them because we have no idea which dictionary you are using. Or if you are just making up the definitions as you go along.

Try this dictionary definition:

A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

It seems to apply to you. Can you guess what the word is?

Of course I understand that my dictionary is always wrong and yours is always right, but it is fun to compare. What does your dictionary say about that word?

[charlie]

221. No

He did not cite cases in the same article where religion was considered and custody was awarded to the nonpracticing parent...

I was only aware of two: one where the loser's claim to religiosity was held to be suspect and a second where the father prevailed, though the court held his non-observation as a factor against him -- he had enough points to overcome the court's prejudice. Should I have included those? There are others? Cites, please?

...or where (for example) the custody order included instruction to the noncustodial parent not to take the child to Bible class.

As I said upthread, those are instances of sectarian dispute, one parent's religion against the other's. They're not demonstrations of impartiality in regard to (non)belief.

I selected cases, but not for the purpose that you imply.

The article does not cite cases, so far as I can tell, in which the judge determined that one party's religion "religion was not adequate for the court," as you say.

When I see judges taking comparative measurements of religious commitment, I think it's fair to say the loser's "religion was not adequate for the court." But, to-may-to, to-mah-to, I suppose.

[struggle4progress]

224. But Volokh's article largely concerns the question of limitations to freedom of speech

in child custody cases, and this is what Volokh's discussion centers around.

The evidence you wish to cite comes from Volokh's appendix, where examples are provided of which Volokh says the court "cited in the prevailing party's favor the party's comparative religiosity" -- which says only that the court (properly or otherwise) considered religiosity, not that religiosity was the determining factor, since one does not know from the summaries what other factors were actually considered or how the factors were weighed. If you will read the appendix, you will find, after many of the enumerated states lists, a short paragraph with additional discussion, in which you can find more than a total of two cases of the sort I cited and which you apparently do not find in the paper.

[charlie]

225. Appendix G?

Under the heading of Cases Upholding Restrictions on a Noncustodial Parent's Teaching Religious Views That Are Inconsistent with the Custodial Parent’s, Without Any Need to Show Likely Harm from the Noncustodial Parent’s Speech? If that's the one, I already saw it, and have explained why I thought they were immaterial.

I don't see where it's noted in any of the cases that the non-practicing parent was awarded custody. Am I looking at the wrong section?

[struggle4progress]

248. I'm not going through the article a third time, but Volokh's Appendix A

contains, I think, more than two cases of the type you asked for.

Counting, of course, is pointless, unless one knows the survey method. If Volokh simply picked cases to illustrate the point (which I would not think necessarily inappropriate) and simply pulled out a few counter-examples for counterpoint, that's one thing; if he asked custody attorneys for examples of a specific class, there may be bias selection (or there may not); if he did a random sample of custody cases himself, that's another ball of wax.

[Goblinmonger]

178. There are times in R/T

when I am upset that I missed a big discussion when I have been off for a couple of days. I think I am glad I missed this one. It would have made me pissed off all weekend.

I would like to thank BMUS and cosmick for taking up the fight. You guys (and others on here) are my heros. Sorry I wasn't here to help you out in the face of bigotry.

[TheBaldyMan]

183. There have been posts on DU with members reporting harassment

not only for being atheist but being members of a minority religion. Equal protection doesn't seem to be a universally practiced ideal in the US.

There is also a cultural bias against atheists and non-believers in general.

I think your poll might be unrepresentative because some posters may have had more than one category or perhaps some other manifestation that has not been covered by your options.

If people can be harassed for being Democratic Party supporters it shouldn't take a huge conceptual leap to recognise that non-believers are facing discrimination. In my book that is the same as 'persecution', they may not be burned at the stake but far fewer black people are lynched nowadays. I'd put the whole range of questions in a different way myself.

[Goblinmonger]

187. Just look at the intolerant posts about Quiverfull

from those people that bitch at atheists about bashing religion.

Hell, you can't avoid mockery for wanting to have a lot of kids because you think it is god's will, try thinking god is a crock of shit.

[TheBaldyMan]

189. well I think the whole Quiverfull thing is creepy anyway,

so I don't think I can criticise anyone else for rubbishing it.

I just think that atheists do get treated as pariahs in America, not from personal experience but I can't think of anything like that level of discrimination happening in the UK.

[Goblinmonger]

191. I think it is stupid, too

But I'm equal opportunity when it comes to that. I just think it is rather sweet irony that the same people who bitch at atheists for "bashing" their religion can turn around and call the quiverfull people crazy.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

202. So I avoided answering this until I could ask the four atheists

I know well enough to ask. All of them just kind of shrugged and said: 1) I never thought about it really; 2) Nobody cares what the hell I think about anything; 3) It bothers my grandmother; 4) I'm too old to care.

That is my scientific sampling.

[struggle4progress]

213. About two-thirds of the families of my various cousins are atheists:

they have successful careers in various states, and several are public employees.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I have heard several employers over the years say they wouldn't hire atheists: this may be more common in the so-called Bible-belt.

[Dorian Gray]

220. Probably.

My world view is skewed by where I live. New York City. I don't know anybody here (even some Catholic priests and nuns) who would not hire someone because they were an atheist. As a matter of fact, at my husband's Catholic school, there are atheist teachers. (They don't teach theology, but one is a math teacher and one is an English teacher.)

I just don't have the experience of the Bible Belt, and most people that I know don't really care what religion other people are. The varied faiths of my friends sometimes makes for interesting conversation over drinks, but it's rarely touched upon. At all.

[struggle4progress]

222. I've mainly heard such garbage from right wing Texans.

[Dorian Gray]

232. Wait a second?

Is this post in response to my last post. I honestly have no idea why you'd post that in response to what I wrote. Can you tell me what you found offensive about it? Honestly and seriously asking. I pretty much was stating that I live in NYC, and most people I know don't discriminate based upon religion. Sure, there are exceptions. But, it's not a part of every day life here, and I my world view is colored by the vast diversity found here. How is that a problem for you?

[struggle4progress]

236. I wasn't criticizing NY, or tolerance, or your post. I was saying ...

I'd heard the "I'd fire an atheist" garbage from a few RW Texans. Apologies for my lack of clarity.

[Dorian Gray]

239. :)

I misunderstood. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Finder]

234. That is an important factor...Bible belt vs other regions...

Just because atheists in one region are not persecuted openly does not mean they aren't as a whole. In many areas, you are judged by the church or organizations you belong to. Many of these organizations require a belief in a deity. Essentially, atheists are prevented from even stepping on the ladder.

Atheists in most cases can file for office since the paperwork (in most states)does not ask the question. Getting endorsements and funding and votes is another thing. In my case, an endorsement from the KofC was pulled due to my refusal to run on a pro-life platform.

Fact is, many non-believers are in office, but they are not "out." Same with homosexuals and bisexuals. There is definitely a "don't ask, don't tell" policy in play.

Same goes for many religious leaders. Religion is a career choice rather than a "calling" for many.

[struggle4progress]

237. Let me concentrate on the question of political endorsements and funding and votes,

because I think there are underlying issues involving political skill and savvy.

When one runs for office, the point is to collect people and money around the candidate: this involves convincing people that the candidate will vote their interests, as the supporters see their interests -- and as most DUers are aware, many people don't follow politics very closely and a number may vote mainly on the basis of emotional factors.

A competent politician is a public, not a purely private, personality -- and this means that not all of one's own views are relevant and not all need to be shared. Political success may depend in large part on choosing exactly what one shares with the public, and not every personal view is relevant.

I personally prefer candidates who say little or nothing about their religious views, and once a person starts talking about religion, I'm disinclined to vote for them. That's not prejudice against religion from me but an observation that the candidate's religious chatter is a distraction from secular issues the candidate should be discussing; but of course I'd have exactly the same objection to anyone who spoke much about their own atheism in a campaign -- which is not an objection to the atheism itself. In many places, the appropriate long-term solution to the problem will be to secularize campaigns as much as possible and to try to run good candidates who simply aren't interested in talking about religion.

You can complain that this is "don't ask, don't tell" -- but in fact it is the more general advice to "Smile and keep your mouth shut" which candidates follow everywhere. It's a skill to say what's relevant and to avoid blurting out all manner of irrelevancies. A lot of successful politicians simply work to avoid any controversy at all, as counterproductive. There are many issues on which candidates don't take stands, no matter how they feel about them, because it create pointless controversy and divisions. For example, sex between underage teenagers is quite common, and in many cases part of the usual growing up process, and probably many people think that it is not always a bad thing, assuming appropriate precautions taken, but you'll never hear a politician say this or take a stand on the normalcy of teenage masturbation.

[Finder]

238. Institutionalized hypocrisy...

in a sense.

I do agree with most of what you said, but religion is brought up during campaigns...A secular process would be fine by me but it isn't going to happen in a lot of places. The religious right has a well oiled machine.

[Evoman]

229. Yes, but there are atheist here who tell you otherwise.

And some people in parts of the country are worse than others. I personally don't understand why anybody WANTS to feel persecuted...I certainly don't want to. But I don't lie to myself that even here in Canada, I've felt a certain amount of uncomfortableness at coming out.....my girlfriends parents, for example, do not know that I am an atheist, even though religion has come up in conversation a couple of times. I'm sort of lucky that I am a scientist, so anybody who would employ me would probably be an atheist as well. However, I have friends in the U.S. who I can surely say have suffered discrimination for their "godlessness".

It also help, I suppose, that I'm a 6 foot tall mean latino with a shaved head....lol. Nobody really wants to piss me off.

[Dorian Gray]

231. I understand that it is difficult for some

I am not trying to deny that. The stories that people tell about the rudeness and discrimination that they suffer at the hands of those who don't understand them or who dislike them for who they are makes me sad. I don't understand why anybody would purposely want to treat someone else so horribly. Human beings are cruel creatures, though.

I'm just glad that I live where I do. Where one's religious beliefs don't make much of a difference in life. People, for the most part, live and let live, and I prefer it that way. Hell, I'd hate to move somewhere in which the majority thought that Catholicism was evil. Luckily, I've lived mostly in large cities in my life, and that experience has colored my experience about discrimination.

[Evoman]

228. I don't understand what you win by refusing to accept that atheist are discrimanted against.

Its quite obvious from all these posts, and what atheists tell you with out stories, that we suffer from discrimination. Many times, using the dictionary term for "persecution" also applies to what many people here go through (have you seen the posts about what BMUS goes through at work or what Ladyhawk went through with her family?). I don't understand what you get from denying that many atheists are discrimated against in parts of the U.S. (and even in Canada). Does it make you feel better? Does it make you feel less guilty? Do you enjoy riling up the atheists here?

Why do you start a fight, and then want to win it so bad? I mean, it seems quite clear to me that you have little to no interest in actually listening to the stories here or in learning anything. Whenever somoene gives you an example of what they've gone through or a story from the newspaper, you just strike it down and say, "Thats not persecution or Thats not discrimination". If you have already made up your mind, whats the point of even posting here?

Some christians are obviously interested in justice and equality, and understanding other people. Some are not. Which category do you think you fit in?

[Dorian Gray]

233. Personally,

I do agree with this, Evoman. I don't understand why it is necessary to start this thread, under the guise of discussion, and then repudiate every incident that people shared with you.

I think it is apparant that there is discrimination in the US against many groups, and atheists are, indeed, one of them. I also suspect that some hold out against some of the atheists here because of the perceived insults aimed at Christians.

These topics go around in circles, and they seem to never end. It's sad and it's exhausting. Discrimination does suck. As I've said, I live in such a place where it really isn't much an issue, and I'm very happy for that. Sometimes it's difficult to place myself in the mindset of someone living with these problems in the South, the Midwest, or even in another country. I admit that, and some of my answers may be colored by the idea that "Hey, it's not a problem here, so I don't understand the complaints." I'm lucky that way.

[trotsky]

235. Another instance where I wish I could nominate a post instead of a thread.

Thanks, Evoman. Would be nice if the OP read this and responded, but I won't be holding my breath.

[struggle4progress]

240. At this point, I've posted more than once that, for example, I have ..

heard a few people say they would fire atheists and that, based on my own experience refusing to participate in public school religious activities, I found credible similar stories in this thread about similar treatment of school kids. The thread also contains, for example, a news story about a cafe owner who wouldn't let an atheist group meet in the cafe. I don't doubt that such things happen, though no one in this thread has clearly established how common they are or where they are most likely to occur.

There have been repeated unsupported claims made that atheists can't run for public office -- although from what's in this thread, it seems SC might still be a problem for notary applications.

There's also a long article by Volokh on the topic of first amendment issues in child custody cases, which includes consideration of such topics as whether courts might deny custody to Marxists or people who own pornography or people who believe in free love and the degree to which it might or might not be appropriate to consider religious issues in such cases -- and it seems likely that courts consider the atheism of a parent in making such a decision.

The point, for me, is to attempt to sort out exactly what can sorted out on this topic and to obtain an accurate picture. If one is interested in trying to sort out what exactly the problems are, one needs a better collection of evidence. In trying to sort such matters out, purely anecdotal evidence has limited value. When a person says "I had such and such an experience," fair interpretation of the experience as evidence requires hearing the other side of the story. So far as I can tell I haven't told anyone in this thread that they didn't have an experience they claimed --although several seem to have told me they can't run for public office, claim they're disallowed, and claim they can't afford to litigate the matter, without providing any evidence whatsoever of any recently disallowed candidacies.

There is, of course monitoring of actual hate-crimes against gays, blacks, and certain minority religious groups; people had voted in the poll, that atheists houses are being burned down, which if true should justify atheists monitoring the situation and documenting it, which being a fifth of the population the group certainly has the resources to do.

I've certainly met my share of wacko fundamentalists, who despise me for my views of any number of topics, and who (when I was an atheist) considered that another reason to dislike me -- but of course they could find many other reasons as well, and did, and still do, the appropriate way to deal with wackos, when they are few in number, is to avoid them. If, of course, the wackos are concentrated and organized in their intolerance (as they seem to have been in the Delaware case), that presents a completely different problem.

[Finder]

243. Is it your conclusion that there is no persecution of atheists in the US...

whatsoever?

[struggle4progress]

245. Some links to what I've actually said

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=97059&mesg_id=97240
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=97059&mesg_id=97528
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=97059&mesg_id=97528

[toddaa]

244. You're not gonna like this response

You want a reasonable answer? I doubt you are looking for a reasonable answer. Unless atheists are being drawn and quartered in public squares, we're nothing but a bunch of whiners compared to you Holy Martyrs.

Anyway, let me just say right off that I agree atheists are not the most persecuted minority in America. We may be the most hated, but we certainly aren't the most persecuted.

But before you get all smug, it's time for me to play mean old atheist on you. I believe that I was far more persecuted as a Christian than I am now. Religion is mental abuse and now that I am an atheist I no longer feel psychologically damaged by threats of eternal damnation. So there you go. Atheists are the only people not persecuted by the psychological damage that is superstitious hokum.

[struggle4progress]

246. Well, that's an interesting answer. Like many posts in this thread,

it immediately devolves into name-calling (you Holy Martyrs) and accusation (I doubt you are looking for a reasonable answer or before you get all smug).

I'll certainly admit there are psychotic behaviors which can include religious bullying, and there's plenty of superstitious hokum floating around in our culture, around all manner of topics, including race, sexual identity, economics, our glorious tendency as Americans to share "democracy" with the rest of the world without any self-interest &c&c

[toddaa]

249. Glad you liked it

You set out to make atheists look ridiculous, so I obliged. Your little set up job of a poll is both stupid and insulting. You deliberately set up this thread to belittle legitimate incidents of discrimination against atheists by suggesting that they are trivial when compared to lynching of blacks and hate crimes against gays.

[NAO]

251. Polls show greater prejudice against atheists than gays or any race

I think the poll question was "which group are the least "American" in character"?

[DemBones DemBones]

257. Since EVERYONE is subject to "unwelcome preaching and proselytizing,"

it's illogical to count that as "persecution" of atheists.

You think most Christians want to listen to Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons?

All you have to do is tell people who bring up religion that you don't want to talk about it. If they're co-workers and keep doing it, tell your boss. If your boss is the one doing it, file a lawsuit.

If people come to your door offering you religious literature, you don't have to answer the door. (I don't.) If by mistake you do answer the door, just quickly tell them you're not interested. (It would be a good idea to say "No, thanks, I'm not interested." Jehovah's Witnesses LOVE it when someone is rude to them. So don't be rude unless you want to make them happy.)

OTOH, if you CHOOSE to debate with people about religion, you really can't complain about what they say.

[and-justice-for-all]

259. So far......

Since I have put these bumper stickers on my car; Which I attached to magnetic strip so I can change them all the time. I have yet to incounter a xtian neaderthal.

"GOD IS JUST PRETEND"
"THE BIBLE: A Grim Fairy Tale"
"RELIGION IS BUNK - Tomas Edison"
"FAITH IS BELIEVEING WHAT YOU KNOW ISNT SO - Mark Twain"
"JESUS CHRIST SUPER FRAUD"
"He's your God, There your rules, You burn in hell."
"ATHEISM CURES RELIGIOUS TERRORISM"

Along with me American Atheist sticker in my window decal, I have had no situations with stupified xtians. I did have someone tell me "I like your bumper stickers". But, its only a matter of time before some dumb fuck opens his ignorant mouth.

I put them on my car because 1) I firmly believe those statements and 2) I want people know that they do NOT have to believe that dogmatic superstitious bullshit. I live in a town where there are more churches and gas stations them educational institutes.