Facts About Atheists according to Pew

[Huzzar]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

And same for firesighters.

 

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

 

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

 

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

Nothing hypocritical about it, Merlyn. They behaved like assholes, I can call 'em on it. And you have to be reading impaired to think that the cards they displayed were meant to do anything but mock the religious displays.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

And same for firesighters.

 

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

 

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

 

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

The hypocritical part is where you calling people "assholes" makes you an asshole, and deserving of having your first amendment rights ignored.

[Stosh]

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

He's on the forum just to make waves.... You can't get a straight answer out of him, but he surely wants one from you. It's just his game.

[Stosh]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yep, how dare atheists try to be treated equally.

 

 

 

 

So everyone has something to bitch about. It's always been that way, it is now, and will be for a long time coming. There's nothing new under the sun.

 

"But if I ran the zoo," / Said young Gerald McGrew, "I'd make a few changes. / That's just what I'd do…" (2.1-4)

The lions and tigers and that kind of stuff / They have up here now are not quite good enough. / You see things like these in just any old zoo. (3.1-3)

- Dr. Seuss

 

Everyone out there has their own opinion on how to make things better, but in reality nothing really gets better. Wouldn't it make sense that if things were getting better everyone would quit whining. Not seeing much improvement, but the whining is getting louder.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yep, how dare atheists try to be treated equally.

 

 

 

 

You might have noticed that atheists ARE doing something about it, and some people here (and out there in the real world) have been bitching about atheists doing something about it.

[Stosh]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yep, how dare atheists try to be treated equally.

 

 

 

 

Not a problem, the black back in the 60's did something about it, women did something about it back in the 20's, it's an ongoing process. People whine to make things change and others whine that it changed. What's new about any of that? It just depends on what day of the week it is and who's ox is getting gored. It's part of life, get over it.

 

Stosh

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yep, how dare atheists try to be treated equally.

 

 

 

 

As I recall, you started out bitching about it; if you had "gotten over it", you wouldn't have posted in the first place.

[Stosh]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yep, how dare atheists try to be treated equally.

 

 

 

 

I wasn't bitching, I just enjoy pushing whiny people's buttons. I've gotten some of those whines at an octave only dogs can hear.

 

Stosh

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yep, how dare atheists try to be treated equally.

 

 

 

 

You're whining seems genuine enough to me, particularly in view of your sophophobic tendencies.

[DigitalScout]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

And same for firesighters.

 

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

 

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

 

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

I love Christmas and help decorate our church each year for the Christmas season. But why does the Chester County Courthouse feel the need to put up creche? There are 8 churches within a 1/4 mile of the courthouse with no doubt get decorated with Christmas trees and manger scenes each year. Are the county commissioners trying to make a statement that Chester County is a Christian county and non-Christians aren't welcome? They should accommodate decorations from all religions (including Pastafarians, Wiccans, Satanists) or no religions.

[Stosh]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

And same for firesighters.

 

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

 

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

 

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

So go ahead and put them up, it's your Constitutional right. If they don't like yours up there next to theirs, they are free to move theirs to a better, less distracting location on private property where they have control over what gets put up. In a public place, it should be open to all to express their opinions, INCLUDING religious ones.

 

Stosh

[Stosh]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yep, how dare atheists try to be treated equally.

 

 

 

 

What's that you say? I couldn't hear you, my dog was going nuts barking.

 

Stosh

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

And same for firesighters.

 

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

 

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

 

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

So go ahead and put them up, it's your Constitutional right.

 

You can't actually follow conversations, can you? But why bother?

[DigitalScout]

"The Atheists are destroying America" is just another make-believe monster created in the minds of conservatives. For instance, all American students can pray when they wake up, at the breakfast table, before leaving for school, in the car going home, during family dinner and before bed. That's called religious freedom in America. But when secular schools don't have Christian prayer time in the secular classroom, some call it religious persecution. I just don't get that. I'm a Christian and I pray every day with my family. I'm hardly being persecuted because my son can't pray in school.

[King Ding Dong]

"The Atheists are destroying America" is just another make-believe monster created in the minds of conservatives. For instance, all American students can pray when they wake up, at the breakfast table, before leaving for school, in the car going home, during family dinner and before bed. That's called religious freedom in America. But when secular schools don't have Christian prayer time in the secular classroom, some call it religious persecution. I just don't get that. I'm a Christian and I pray every day with my family. I'm hardly being persecuted because my son can't pray in school.

He can pray all he wants in school. I bet he does before every test.

 

He just can't lead a group prayer.