Merlyn_LeRoy

Beavah writes: After all, girls and atheists are far more well-accepted in society. http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-07-26/athiest-poll-president/56516466/1 ... The latest survey, from June, found that 54 percent of those asked said they would vote a "well- qualified" atheist into the Oval Office ... On the other hand, the survey showed that those who do not believe in God still come in behind every other group polled for, including gays and lesbians (68 percent) and Muslims (58 percent). ... http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1#.UDZKKU1lTRo ... When asked which groups did not share their vision of American society, 39.5 percent of those interviewed mentioned atheists. Asked the same question about Muslims and homosexuals, the figures dropped to a slightly less depressing 26.3 percent and 22.6 percent, respectively. ... While some areas get mildly annoyed by da behavior of atheists with respect to Christmas displays and other art, we otherwise have no issues. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/media/death-threats-against-atheist-spokesman-after-fox-news-appearance http://www.alternet.org/story/153803/why_is_an_atheist_high_school_student_getting_vicious_death_threats http://current.com/community/91446453_death-threats-force-removal-of-atheist-billboard.htm

skeptic writes: That is why it did not really cause problems until it somehow became the cause celebre of the ACLU and other PC proponents and forced National to make what most of us agree now was a poor decision on how to respond. The ACLU is not a "PC" proponent, it's a civil liberties proponent.

Rand sure wouldn't be my choice to run a day-care center http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Ayn_Rand_School_for_Tots

AZMike writes: The comment was in reference to why most people don't trust atheists as political leaders. And your bigoted attitude towards atheists shows why.

AZMike writes: So you have 28 members of Congress who don't have the courage to announce their convictions? I'm sure there are a LOT more than that, but there are 27 (or so; the survey was a few years back) who haven't made their atheism known. Your bizarre accusations that most atheists are genocidal is a good example why.

Probably true, but the BSA didn't exist then.

There's one OUT atheist in congress (Rep. Pete Stark of CA), but according to the Secular Coalition's poll of congress, there are 28 members of congress "who do not personally believe in a higher power" (a little over 5%).

Somewhat on-topic, as their male-only membership has sometimes come up in this forum: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/sports/golf/augusta-national-golf-club-to-add-first-two-female-members.html [Condoleezza Rice and Darla D. Moore (local businesswoman)] What seems to have been the impetus for this was when the CEO of IBM, Virginia M. Rometty, one of the sponsors of the Masters tournament, was not admitted, even though that has been the tradition. So maybe the BSA will change when there's a gay or atheist president of the US.

It's because Ayn Rand has atheist cooties, packsaddle.

The plaintiffs were never denied access, as they chose to not even try because they might be exposed to some small indication of religion, according to them. Here's what the courts say: The plaintiffs Barnes-Wallaces are a lesbian couple and the plaintiffs Breens are agnostics. Because of their sexual and religious orientations, they cannot be Boy Scout volunteers. Both couples have sons old enough to join the Boy Scouts, and they would like their sons to use the leased facilities, but the parents refuse to give the approval required for membership. As part of the membership application, a parent must promise to assist his or her son in observing the policies of the Boy Scouts of America . . . [to] serve as his adult partner and participate in all meetings and approve his advancement. [id. 1533.] The application also includes the Scout Law and the Declaration of Religious Principle. The Barnes-Wallaces and the Breens believe that the Boy Scouts policies are discriminatory, and they refuse to condone such practices by allowing their children to join the Boy Scouts. That hardly matches your description; to join, the lesbian couple would have to agree that gays are 'unclean' like the BSA says, and the agnostics would have to agree that only believers can be the best kinds of citizens. Plus, of course, they would be paying membership fees to a group that continues to denigrate them. Apparently, having to book use through the scout office was too much contact with a supposedly "religious organization". That wasn't the basis of the lawsuit. But, since apparently atheism is also, Atheism isn't a "religious organization." There can be religious organizations that espouse atheism (there are a few, like the Raelians), but atheism isn't a religious organization any more than theism is a religious organization. according to the ruling you quoted, then they really do not have much on which to base their argument, You don't HAVE their argument. They didn't object per se in dealing with a religious organization, they objected to having to join an organization like the BSA (which denigrates both families) to use public property. even if you discount the fact they never even attempted to book it, nor were actually turned down. Well, the courts disagree with you.

AZMike writes: "Check out County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1989). And, since no other religion was allowed to offer prayers, yes, it IS a special privilege. " If no other religion was allowed to offer prayers, in that specific case, sure. That's what I've been SAYING. The use of public prayer in other circumstances I described, no problem. I disagree. Merlyn": "Atheism is no different. That would also be state control of religion." So, in your opinion, atheism is a religion? No, but lots of things that aren't "religions" are covered. Trintarianism isn't a religion, it's a tenet of some Christian religions, but discrimination for or against someone for being a trinitarian would be religious discrimination. Same for polytheism. Same for atheism. Merlyn: "It isn't a religion, but it's still covered by the first amendment. Trinitarianism isn't a religion, but that's covered. Polytheism isn't a religion (it's a tenet of some religions), but that's covered, too. The generic religious tenets held by some religions (Trinitarianism or polytheism) are included in the free exercise of religion clause. The 7th Circuit decision seems to have held the belief that atheism is a religion, or should be granted the rights afforded to a religion. Except when it doesn't want to be seen as a religion. Or it does. Nope. There are a lot of religious creeds; discriminating against someone for holding or NOT holding a particular religious creed is religious discrimination. Atheists don't hold to the creed "god exists." "Under US law, discriminating against atheists (because they're atheists) is religious discrimination. Read Torcaso, read Welsh v. United States, read Kaufman v. McCaughtry." Welsh v. U.S. concerned a conscientious objector who had no religious beliefs, and SCOTUS decided in his favor, which was appropriate. But the legislation said ONLY RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS were valid for a conscientious objector, and Welsh didn't have religious objections. So, using your logic, how could the court decide in his favor? Why is it appropriate? Kaufman v. McCaughtry (which was 7th Circuit decision, not SCOTUS) concerned whether atheist prisoners had the same right to meet as members of religious groups, and whether the atheist defendant had the right to possess homosexual sadomasochistic pornography, " including but not limited to flagellation, bondage, brutality to or mutilation or physical torture of a human being, which illustrates the high moral character of the atheist in question. The 7th Circuit court decision in this was memorably screwy, especially as the defendant himself said atheism is the antithesis of religion. It would have made more sense as part of the right to peacefully assemble or free speech. If atheism is the functional equivalent of religion, that also opens a whole hornet's nest as to whether atheist arguments could ever be allowed to be expressed in state-funded schools...Are you sure you want to go there? Oh, yes. Government run schools shouldn't advocate atheism any more than they should advocate Christianity. In Torcaso v. Watkins, SCOTUS certainly recognized that an atheist cannot be compelled to take a religious oath to be a notary public, which is a type of public office, which seems fair, although again, it suggested that explicitly atheistic (although not scientific) comments could be seen as expressions of religious belief. If so, it would be appropriate to prohibit the teaching of any atheist viewpoint in public schools and universities, under the 1st Amendment. I agree. You seem to think you've discovered something new or something. As I said, I don't have an issue with atheists being allowed to hold office if that is the will of the electorate, and the marketplace of ideas is the best defense against such people. Well, that doesn't explain your earlier enthusiasm for laws prohibiting atheists from holding office. "That's no reason to make it a law; I'm sure a lot of religious minorities have a hard time getting elected, but that's no reason to make it illegal for them to run." Nor is it. I did not say it should be a law (the opposite in fact). You seemed to approve of state constitutions preventing atheists from holding office, which makes it illegal for them to run. And religious minorities hold public office all over the U.S. Catholics are a religious minority in the U.S., although the largest individual denomination of Christians, and barring Biden being dumped for Hillary, a Catholic will be the Vice-President next year. As I said, it is instead a perception problem that exists for an atheist who wants to seek public office - the majority of people don't trust them (in fact, they trust them less than religious minorities - see the link I provided), and most people have seen the results of atheism in the 20th and 21st centuries. There have been 28 atheist countries in the world, with 89 atheists ruling those countries. More than half of those (58%) engaged in democidal acts (i.e., mass genocide against their own citizens). If you also include the death figures for those countries they forcibly invaded and annexed, the body count for atheist leaders stands somewhere between 148 million and 260 million, depending on whose stats you use (as atheist leaders are pretty efficient at eliminating pesky historians). Thus, between 1917 and 2007, the 52 atheist political leaders who held office during that time are responsible for (using a conservative estimate) about 148 million dead, which is three times more than every human being killed in war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire 20th century combined. Did you have a point? Are you afraid the Prime Minister of Australia will start executing people? So the historical record for atheist politicians, since their rise to power, is 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than the highest estimates for what is cited by atheists as the worst misdeed of Christianity, the Spanish Inquisition, even though atheists have had less than 1/20th of the number of opportunities to commit such crimes during the last millennium. Cry me a river. So if there is a 58% chance that an atheist who becomes a political leader will murder a large portion of the population There's a 100% chance you are ignorant of probability. that is entrusted to his care, and despite that fact than not 1 in 1000 religious leaders have committed atrocities on such a scale, can you blame people if they are not inclined to view the rise of an atheist to a position of power with anything less than dread? Like the people of Australia, Great Britain, France? They've all had (or have) atheist Prime Ministers. "I'd say it's because superstitious people demonize atheists -- like I said, it's plain old bigotry." No. People are allowed to dislike people whom they distrust for good cause. You can call that bigotry if you like, I would call it proper discernment. Nah, it's bigotry. "If you don't defend EVERYONE'S religious freedom, you won't be able to keep yours very long. You might want to recall Martin Niemller." Except, atheism is not a religion. Or is it? It's not a religion, but if you can't see that having the freedom to be an atheist falls under religious freedom, I can't help you. I'll defend anyone's freedom of religion, within reason. I won't defend the political rights of someone who denigrates religion, absent special circumstances. So, I assume you're OK with the 11-year-old girl with Down's syndrome who was beaten and imprisoned yesterday in Pakistan for burning some pages of a book? That denegrates religion. There's some speculation her village might be burned down in retaliation. It doesn't say "the free practice of religion", either. Guess that means you can be stopped from practicing your religion, eh? No, it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." At best, Justice Hugo Black made the argument that atheism was religion, except when it wasn't. Go figure. Atheism is covered by the first amendment. Why is that hard for you to understand?

That makes no sense; the plaintiffs aren't controlling access to public property and excluding the BSA, the BSA is excluding the plaintiffs. Now, if an atheist group had a similar lease on a public park, and this atheist group excluded members of the BSA because of the BSA's exclusion of atheists, you'd have a situation like that. But that's not the case.

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

skeptic writes: So, if it is religious discrimination, as per the above, then it must have a religious aspect. Otherwise, it could not be discrimination; would you agree? Atheism is rejection of the creed "god exists", so yes. If not, then the above determination would appear to be erroneous. If though, it is judged to be accurate by the court, then "atheism" does have a religious connotation, even if only peripherally; much like the BSA is peripherally religious (but not a religion). Now how does that reflect on the astute judgement of Mr. Jones in the San Diego cases? No change there; the city leased public land that gives some people inferior access based on religion, sexual orientation, and age+sex.

Peregrinator writes: Via the 14th amendment, it applies to all state/county/city/etc offices as well. 14th Amendment ... never ratified and, even if it were, rotten from top to bottom. What's "rotten" about "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." And discrimination based on religious bigotry IS a bad thing. "Bigotry" is a charged word, implying hatred and intolerance. Well, that's how I'd describe states that exclude people from office due to their religious views; I'd say that if they prohibited Jews or Catholics from office, too. Discrimination based on religion is not necessarily bigotry. If I discriminate against atheists it is because I don't believe they are good moral role models, not because I hate them or don't tolerate them. You can use the same rationale against Jews, Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, etc. And I'll still call you a bigot.

AZMike writes: No, it's not illegal, nor is it a special privilege. Check out County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1989). And, since no other religion was allowed to offer prayers, yes, it IS a special privilege. "Why? Would you say the same thing if a state constitution prohibited Jews, or Catholics from office? If not, why the difference?" If a state constitution banned Jews, or Catholics, or Mormons, or Buddhists, or even Scientologists from public office, it would effect me, as the state control of religion is both unconstitutional and a threat to my own free practice of my religion. Atheism is no different. That would also be state control of religion. But, as most atheists claim, atheism is not a religion. It's a negative. It isn't a religion, but it's still covered by the first amendment. Trinitarianism isn't a religion, but that's covered. Polytheism isn't a religion (it's a tenet of some religions), but that's covered, too. When criticized for the logical historical consequences of atheism - genocide, eugenics, repression Well, I'll just call you a bigot and leave it at that. You CAN discriminate against a nihilistic philosophy, Under US law, discriminating against atheists (because they're atheists) is religious discrimination. Read Torcaso, read Welsh v. United States, read Kaufman v. McCaughtry. The practical reasons most atheists find it difficult to get elected to office, outside of a few insular secular enclaves, is that the vast majority of Americans just don't trust them That's no reason to make it a law; I'm sure a lot of religious minorities have a hard time getting elected, but that's no reason to make it illegal for them to run. Because people realize that atheist "morality" is inherently squishy and malleable. I'd say it's because superstitious people demonize atheists -- like I said, it's plain old bigotry. "If you don't defend EVERYONE'S religious freedom, you won't be able to keep yours very long. You might want to recall Martin Niemller." Except, atheism is not a religion. The Constitution does not say, "the free practice of religion, or lack thereof." It doesn't say "the free practice of religion", either. Guess that means you can be stopped from practicing your religion, eh? Priorities, Merlyn, priorities. It's disingenuous for atheists to argue that the religious must protect the atheist's freedom when the atheist does not act to protect the religious. Straw man; plenty of atheists defend religious freedom, including me. You just seem to make excuses to not bother. I also note that my own religious freedoms ARE being impinged, even as atheists grow ever more strident in the marketplace of ideas. I haven't heard any of them opposing the HHS mandate on my behalf. But apparently, they expect me to travel to Pakistan to defend some numbskull who posted a philosophically naive idea on Facebook. Well, the general public doesn't appear convinced that the HHS mandate infringes on religious freedom, since the health choices are up to the individual. Are you against forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to cover blood transfusions? And no, you don't have to travel to Pakistan, but as in every similar case of someone being held by a faraway government, you can sign petitions and urge your own government to put pressure on the government. And, of course, if Pakistan can get away with imprisoning atheists, maybe next time it'll be Christians. Will you bother to do anything then?

AZMike writes: "Well, I wasn't TALKING about constitutional rights; I was talking about special privileges. Some Christians whine when e.g. a city council has to stop opening meetings with the lord's prayer." Some atheists whine about city councils opening a meeting with any prayer. What's that got to do with Christian special privilege? Having the city council open each meeting with a prayer from your religion is a special privilege (and illegal), not a right. Huh! I didn't know that. My first reaction is, "Cool!" but understand that you might not share my enthusiasm. Why? Would you say the same thing if a state constitution prohibited Jews, or Catholics from office? If not, why the difference? There are probably some practical reasons those statements were put in place in the state constitutions, though - and it wasn't about intolerance... Well, now you're just making up "reasons". Propose a "practical" reason. And yes, it was about intolerance. If people of my own faith are being suppressed, is it logical that I would expend what little personal influence I have overseas to protect a subculture that stands in opposition to what I (and he vast majority of people) believe? If you don't defend EVERYONE'S religious freedom, you won't be able to keep yours very long. You might want to recall Martin Niemller.

Via the 14th amendment, it applies to all state/county/city/etc offices as well. And discrimination based on religious bigotry IS a bad thing.

Well, you seemed to approve of governmental discrimination against atheists in holding public office, which is what Article VI prohibits.

I do comment on e.g. Catholic blogs when they say something stupid about atheists (which is pretty often). Beavah, my dad was raised Episcopalian (IIRC), but he became an atheist at some point.

Why do you hate article VI of the US constitution, Peregrinator?

Well, the ad I've got on top right now is about restoring the national cathedral...What's up with that?

They're all unenforceable since Torcaso v. Watkins, but raising the issue against an atheist candidate could still cost votes by people not wanting to "waste" their vote. Plus, people still try to enforce it. Even though the unanimous Torcaso decision was in 1961, Herb Silverman challenged South Carolina's constitutional requirement by applying as a notary public in 1991. Out of about 30,000 applications, only his was denied, and the SC government, including the governor, kept fighting this case for eight years, wasting about $300,000 in public money. And in 2009, an atheist was elected to the Asheville, NC city council, and some people threatened lawsuits to remove him because he didn't meet the NC constitutional requirements, but they didn't get anywhere.

AZMike writes: Blasphemy laws are inherently a religious act, since you need to set a religious standard for prosecution. No more so than "Hate speech laws," yes? You can recognize that some speech is offensive to others without holding to the tenets of that or any religion. But "offensive" isn't necessarily blasphemy, and some statements by some religions are considered blasphemous to a second religion, so you need to decide which one "wins." "What's that got to do with my statement about losing special privileges?" I don't think constitutional rights (in the U.S., at least) constitute "special privileges." Well, I wasn't TALKING about constitutional rights; I was talking about special privileges. Some Christians whine when e.g. a city council has to stop opening meetings with the lord's prayer. "What do you think about US states that say atheists can't hold public office, or Indonesia imprisoning people for stating they're atheists?" Which U.S. states have laws against atheists holding public office? Not state laws, but their state constitutions: Arkansas "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court." Maryland "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God" Mississippi "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state" North Carolina "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God" Pennsylvania "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth" South Carolina "No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution" Tennessee "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state" Texas "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being" I'm not a Muslim nor an Indonesian, so it doesn't really affect me. I would disagree if the U.S. imprisoned atheists just for being atheists. So you don't care about injustice outside the US?

Beavah writes: I wonder how many burned heretics yeh can find in history, eh? A few hundred, perhaps? Plenty enough to show that religions don't like being criticized. Thanks for making my case. That pales in comparison to da executions of religious folks by secular or atheist governments, eh? Even just within da last century. The large number of people executed by Texas or any other nonreligious government is irrelevant to my point that religions don't like being criticized. AZMike writes: "Lately," of course, things have changed. And I've seen lots of Christians whine when they lose their special privileges." I think most people "whine," or complain, to use a less value-laden term, when their rights are taken from them. What's that got to do with my statement about losing special privileges? "Sure doesn't sound like religions are used to being criticized." Gosh, I guess they were never martyred by the pagan Romans, murdered by the millions in Dachau and Auschwitz, murdered by the millions in Soviet Russia, murdered by the millions in Mao's China, murdered by the atheist government of Calles, murdered by the atheist government of Hoxha, murdered by the French Revolutionary Tribunals, etc., etc., etc. Still irrelevant to my point that religions aren't used to being criticized. Here's a hint: you can't excuse crimes by a group by pointing to crimes committed against that group. There are plenty of examples of religious groups violently suppressing dissent, and laundry lists of people violently suppressing THEM doesn't erase or excuse that. Ireland does not have an official state religion, by the way, so a blasphemy law in Ireland is not a religious act, it's a civil one by the elected representatives of a republic. Blasphemy laws are inherently a religious act, since you need to set a religious standard for prosecution. What do you think of the harsh laws against Christian free speech enforced by Canada's "Human Rights Council", or the German laws against home schooling by the religious? I'm against them. What do you think about US states that say atheists can't hold public office, or Indonesia imprisoning people for stating they're atheists?