Atheists are subjected to discrimation?

[GarfieldJL]

That premise doesn't appear to hold any weight. The minority of the population of religious people, which are an overwhelming majority, are too tiny to skew results. If anything, there is more to be fear by those that are not religious who fear the bigotry and persecution of those deluded by religion.

 

Funny I usually see it coming from the atheists not the religious people. And I'm sure that also explains the congressional report I had posted about in a seperate topic? I'm questioning the data integrity and the objectivity of the researchers, I'd also like to know where they conducted the test.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

That premise doesn't appear to hold any weight. The minority of the population of religious people, which are an overwhelming majority, are too tiny to skew results. If anything, there is more to be fear by those that are not religious who fear the bigotry and persecution of those deluded by religion.

If Christians are persecuted in the States, then what are atheists, Garfield?

 

Atheists cannot hold public office in several states.

Atheists cannot be members of the Boy Scouts.

Atheists cannot (or could not) testify in court in several states.

40% of Americans have stated they'd not vote for an otherwise qualified atheist running for President.

People coming out as atheists in the States risk career damage, are likely to lose friends and face bullying and freezing-out, etc. etc. etc.

 

How are Christians persecuted? By having your beliefs questioned?

 

I find it deeply insulting to people who are actually persecuted (such as gypsies or for that matter Christians in some nations) when American Christians, who make up the vast majority of the country's population and control all three branches of its government, find the courage to whine about 'persecution', often while being extremely intolerant to actual minority groups such as gays, atheists, etc.

 

Garfield, think about that man in Iraq who converted to Christianity and then had to be helped out of the country so that he wouldn't get killed. If American Christians face persecution, what do you call what Iraqi Christians go through?

[GarfieldJL]

If Christians are persecuted in the States, then what are atheists, Garfield?

 

Atheists cannot hold public office in several states.

Atheists cannot be members of the Boy Scouts.

Atheists cannot (or could not) testify in court in several states.

40% of Americans have stated they'd not vote for an otherwise qualified atheist running for President.

People coming out as atheists in the States risk career damage, are likely to lose friends and face bullying and freezing-out, etc. etc. etc.

 

I find it deeply insulting to people who are actually persecuted (such as gypsies or for that matter Christians in some nations) when American Christians, who make up the vast majority of the country's population and control all three branches of its government, find the courage to whine about 'persecution', often while being extremely intolerant to actual minority groups such as gays, atheists, etc.

 

Garfield? If you believe that the US was founded as a Christian nation and that the Christians in the US are being 'persecuted', you live in a fantasy world. Get back to reality, please, we're trying to run a planet here.

 

Post some sources please, it sounds like you're referring to a bunch of laws that just haven't been challenged yet and people forgot about them.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

BSA on atheists: Atheists in Scouting

 

Atheists and public office: Clickie

 

Atheists and testifying in court: Clicke

 

Voting for atheists: Here

 

I'm sure you'll find some way to excuse all of these, but in the meantime, please tell me how Christians in the States being "persecuted".

[GarfieldJL]

Okay and you know I can debunk at least 3 of your claims off the cuff. Only one that may be valid is the first one and that needs better sources on your part.

 

Atheists and public Office: could you get some legitimate sources plz, the ones in your search are well known propaganda pulpits. (Like the state constitutions in question)

 

Atheists and testifying in court: the idea behind this is being under oath, and the idea is to tell the truth when giving testimony. By saying they don't have to be under oath, it's like saying they can't be charged for deliberately giving false testimony (perjury) because they weren't under oath.

 

Voting for atheists: You got to be kidding, it's called a secret ballot for a reason. Seriously there are people that might not vote for an aetheist for that reason as there would be people that would vote for an aetheist.

 

See Exchange between myself and several others in this topic:

http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=2594414#post2594414

 

Specifically SkinWalker claiming that religious people aren't as intelligent as aetheists.

[EnderWiggin]

Okay and you know I can debunk at least 3 of your claims off the cuff. Only one that may be valid is the first one and that needs better sources on your part.

 

Actually you can't. Read on if you've fallen for my cliffhanger:

Atheists and public Office: could you get some legitimate sources plz, the ones in your search are well known propaganda pulpits. (Like the state constitutions in question)

@DE - hope you don't mind if I do some educating

 

Firstly:

 

... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

 

 

"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."

[/Quote]

 

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

 

"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; ..."

 

"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."

 

"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."

 

Sources:

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/pdf/const.pdf

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a04.htm

http://www.constitution.legis.state.tx.us/

http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html

http://www.sos.state.ms.us/pubs/constitution/constitution.asp

 

and there are others, but I've spent a while compiling these so if you want more, just ask. I'll link you up the other 3-4

 

Specifically SkinWalker claiming that religious people aren't as intelligent as aetheists.

That was a normative claim that was thoroughly backed by empirical evidence. [http://www.m-w.com if you need it]

 

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

EnderWiggin, you do realize that many of the examples you are citing would be easy to change if they ever got challenged.

 

And as I pointed out to SkinWalker they used to say that people of color weren't as intelligent using the same style of experimentation the people he is citing are using.

[EnderWiggin]

EnderWiggin, you do realize that many of the examples you are citing would be easy to change if they ever got challenged.

 

Irrelevant. They exist, they are enforced. Two premises that back DE's claim, which you said was false, and I quote, "off the cuff." Syllogism ftw.

And as I pointed out to SkinWalker they used to say that people of color weren't as intelligent using the same style of experimentation the people he is citing are using.

 

And this is offtopic, as well as fallacious and altogether false.

 

Good post though - irrelevant, offtopic, fallacious, false.

 

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

Irrelevant. They exist, they are enforced. Two premises that back DE's claim, which you said was false, and I quote, "off the cuff." Syllogism ftw.

 

Actually, it isn't enforced, if it was it would be overturned by now...

 

And this is offtopic, as well as fallacious and altogether false.

 

Since it potentially invalidates the entire study it isn't offtopic, and since I found articles that even found discrimination at the Smithsonian Institute with Aetheists targetting someone because they were Christian, you can't argue it's false either.

 

Good post though - irrelevant, offtopic, fallacious, false.

 

There you go again...

[SW01]

Actually, it isn't enforced, if it was it would be overturned by now...

 

Out of curiosity, is there any evidence of that? Such as a court case or judicial dictum? I am well aware that courts often decline to apply anachronistic legislation, but surely a constitutional matter would require something more concrete?

[GarfieldJL]

Out of curiosity, is there any evidence of that? Such as a court case or judicial dictum? I am well aware that courts often decline to apply anachronistic legislation, but surely a constitutional matter would require something more concrete?

 

Actually it doesn't, all you need is an actual case for it to be taken to court and none have come up to take it to court. I've taken a Constitutional Law class, that's basically how it works.

[SW01]

Actually it doesn't, all you need is an actual case for it to be taken to court and none have come up to take it to court.

 

Then there is still the danger that it can be used by a public body, though many may merely be exercsing common sense in not using it. Still, it is preferential that for a document so important as a constitution - state, federal or otherwise - no such difficulties should exist.

 

The lack of any judicial assurance is worrying. Assuming the American Judicial hierarchy is similar to ours, and knowing that the Supreme Courts are vested with the power to strike down unconstitutional laws, it would seem that an applicant would need to manage to gain leave to appeal before it could be disapplied, an overly costly, lengthy and burdensome procedure.

 

I've taken a Constitutional Law class, that's basically how it works.

 

The reason I ask is that I have seen similar situations in British Constitutional Law classes, where we had some truly ancient and highly problematic laws that needed to be clarified, which could only be done properly after three trials, in order to reach the House of Lords (=Supreme Court).

 

My point is, while such regulations remain on the books, especially in a constitutional framework, they are dangerous. Those linked by EW really should not exist today, something I'm sure we all can agree on!

[Dagobahn Eagle]

EnderWiggin, you do realize that many of the examples you are citing would be easy to change if they ever got challenged.

Why? Merely because they're unconstitutional and bigoted? Merely because you say so? Merely because you disagree with them or find them outrageous?

 

There's lots and lots of atheists in America. Do you really think none of them have had the bright idea of dragging this bigotry off to court? Do you really believe that, say, none of the parents of atheist kids who weren't allowed into the Boy Scouts have tried to challenge the rule? Don't be ridiculous.

 

Actually, it isn't enforced, if it was it would be overturned by now...

Please, please don't make blanket statements when it's blatantly obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Use qualifiers such as "I think", "I find it hard to believe" for such instances.

 

And as I pointed out to SkinWalker they used to say that people of color weren't as intelligent using the same style of experimentation the people he is citing are using.

And this is offtopic, as well as fallacious and altogether false.

First of all, a 'person of colour' and a religious person are two altogether different things. Secondly, even though I'm Caucasian, I'm downright insulted by your implication that the racists of old used actual scientific research as opposed to pseudo-science when they stated 'people of colour' were less intelligent than religious people.

 

People with a higher education and more income are less likely to be religious. Going out on a limb, I'd say this is because these people don't need religion as much as people living in poverty, but also of course because their education allows them to easier see through things like Creationism. Stating this, or that relatively low intelligence level and religious beliefs correlate, is entirely different from saying something like "them thar Negroes sure are dumb".

 

I've taken a Constitutional Law class, that's basically how it works.

And I am a practicing lawyer, and have been for fifteen years (don't believe that? Well, prove it, then !).

 

Oh, and Garfield, how are theists in America persecuted?

[GarfieldJL]

Why? Merely because they're unconstitutional and bigoted? Merely because you say so? Merely because you disagree with them or find them outrageous?

 

They has to be a situation where it can end up in court.

 

There's lots and lots of atheists in America. Do you really think none of them have had the bright idea of dragging this bigotry off to court? Do you really believe that, say, none of the parents of atheist kids who weren't allowed into the Boy Scouts have tried to challenge the rule? Don't be ridiculous.

 

The Boy Scouts are a Private Organization.

 

Please, please don't make blanket statements when it's blatantly obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Use qualifiers such as "I think", "I find it hard to believe" for such instances.

 

It's actually quite simple they have to win an election admit they are an atheist and it ends up in court.

 

First of all, a 'person of colour' and a religious person are two altogether different things. Secondly, even though I'm Caucasian, I'm downright insulted by your implication that the racists of old used actual scientific research as opposed to pseudo-science when they stated 'people of colour' were less intelligent than religious people.

 

Actually discrimination is discrimination, and in the case of Jewish people, it is racial discrimination. And quite frankly it's the same pseudo-science to justify racism that is being used here, I would say the same thing if the study said Atheists aren't as intelligent as people whom believe in God.

 

People with a higher education and more income are less likely to be religious. Going out on a limb, I'd say this is because these people don't need religion as much as people living in poverty, but also of course because their education allows them to easier see through things like Creationism. Stating this, or that relatively low intelligence level and religious beliefs correlate, is entirely different from saying something like "them thar Negroes sure are dumb".

 

Or they are less likely to admit it for fear of discrimination in the workplace.

 

And I am a practicing lawyer, and have been for fifteen years (don't believe that? Well, prove it, then !).

 

Fine you're a lawyer, what is your specialization as a lawyer?

 

Oh, and Garfield, how are theists in America persecuted?

 

Already posted the link to the other topic at least twice, including where I found evidence of discrimination being practiced at the Smithsonian Institute, and I could name a few Universities that have been accused of being anti-semitic.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The Boy Scouts are a Private Organization.

I'm sure it'd be totally OK to you if a private organization receiving public funding announced that theists could not be members.

 

Fine you're a lawyer, what is your specialization as a lawyer?

I think the point went far over your head.

 

Already posted the link to the other topic at least twice, including where I found evidence of discrimination being practiced at the Smithsonian Institute

And discrimination in the workplace is persecution how?

 

Garfield, seriously, stuff it. The very idea that the group that by far makes up the majority of Americans and controls the government is "persecuted" is ludicrous.

 

I could name a few Universities that have been accused of being anti-semitic.

Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with religion more than any other kind of racism.

[SW01]

I still find it incredible that seemingly nothing has been considered, ruled or written on those sections of the constitutions. One would assume that such a glaringly obvious, undeniably discriminatory and wholly unjust, unneccessary and unconstitutional requirement of faith - considering that the US is in no way (legally, anyway) a theocracy - would be pounced upon by your Justices or Professors of Law. I think a little research may be in order for me tonight...

 

EDIT:

And discrimination in the workplace is persecution how?

 

A critical difference, of course. Persecution entails all the nastiness of some of the examples given previously. Discrimination is typically denying of opportunities (for example) on the basis of some petty fact of opinion, belief or biology.

 

ANOTHER EDIT: On researching the constitutions, it seems that they have been declared void by the Supreme Court, in Torcaso v Watkins (1961) 367 US 488 (Link - Judgement delivered by Mr. Justice Black). Although, as I said, it was not a simple matter of having a court disapply it - it took the Supreme Court to do it and re-assert the primacy of the Federal Constitution. You see why such things have to be kept up to date?

[GarfieldJL]

I'm sure it'd be totally OK to you if a private organization receiving public funding announced that theists could not be members.

 

Boy Scouts doesn't receive public money to my knowledge, and there are some atheist organizations I don't believe any theist would want to be a member of.

 

I think the point went far over your head.

 

It didn't, different lawyers specialize in different aspects of the law.

 

And discrimination in the workplace is persecution how?

 

It's basically one and the same the sole difference being on scale.

 

Garfield, seriously, stuff it. The very idea that the group that by far makes up the majority of Americans and controls the government is "persecuted" is ludicrous.

 

It would be ludicrous if it wasn't for the fact it is true.

 

Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with religion more than any other kind of racism.

 

It actually does because to be Jewish is not just a race, it's also a religion too.

 

I still find it incredible that seemingly nothing has been considered, ruled or written on those sections of the constitutions. One would assume that such a glaringly obvious, undeniably discriminatory and wholly unjust, unneccessary and unconstitutional requirement of faith - considering that the US is in no way (legally, anyway) a theocracy - would be pounced upon by your Justices or Professors of Law. I think a little research may be in order for me tonight...

 

Well the thing Dagobahn is neglecting to mention is the fact there has to be something that happens where a person is elected or something of that nature and not allowed to take office then because they are an atheist. You can't take it to court until there is actually an incident where there would be a legitimate lawsuit. The Supreme Court can't pre-emptively rule on laws as being unconstitutional.

 

Because an atheist hasn't won an election in those states where a legitimate suit could then take place, there is no grounds for a lawsuit.

[SW01]

Well the thing Dagobahn is neglecting to mention is the fact there has to be something that happens where a person is elected or something of that nature and not allowed to take office then because they are an atheist. You can't take it to court until there is actually an incident where there would be a legitimate lawsuit. The Supreme Court can't pre-emptively rule on laws as being unconstitutional.

 

Because an atheist hasn't won an election in those states where a legitimate suit could then take place, there is no grounds for a lawsuit.

 

Yes, I am very well aware of the universal principle of common law courts that hypothetical suits will not be entertained.

 

However, I quote Lord Scott of Foscote in R (Rusbridger) v A.G. [2003]: 'it is most undesirable that obsolete statutes should remain unrepealed'. To me, this applies a fortiori in cases of constitutional importance, in any jurisdiction.

 

And I know my edit was made moments before your post, so of course I excuse it's being overlooked, but the issue has essentially been put to bed - quite long ago. What is appalling, though, is that in the face of a Supreme Court decision, these state constitutions have not been amended.

[SW01]

Sueing because you lost the election because you happen to be atheist isn't a legitimate lawsuit.

 

Ahh, but bringing an action for review or on discrimination because one was not permitted to stand for election on such a basis would be.

 

And, again, it has happened already, for one taking action due to being disqualified on grounds of non-belief. See one of my previous posts for Torcaso.

[GarfieldJL]

Ahh, but bringing an action for review or on discrimination because one was not permitted to stand for election on such a basis would be.

 

Well here is the trick they don't claim they are an atheist, if they win the election, then bring it up and when they try to deny their right to hold office then, then they can sue.

 

And, again, it has happened already, for one taking action due to being disqualified on grounds of non-belief. See one of my previous posts for Torcaso.

 

Link plz, anyways you can't sue on a hypothetical situation, there has to be something that has actually happened where the incident actually happened. You can't sue that you're being denied your rights if you lose the election so you wouldn't have been allowed to take the office anyways. The court would have to throw it out because they wouldn't have been allowed to hold the office anyways because they lost the election.

[Q]

Atheists are subjected to discrimination?

 

Certainly not here.

[GarfieldJL]

Atheists are subjected to discrimination?

 

Certainly not here.

 

Agreed, actually I would argue that people that believe in God are discriminated against here.

[SW01]

Well here is the trick they don't claim they are an atheist, if they win the election, then bring it up and when they try to deny their right to hold office then, then they can sue.

 

I'm not certain if you got my point - forgive me if I am mistaken. I was suggesting another way that a potential candidate would be eligible to bring suit against the offending state government.

 

IF a person wished to stand, and he was refused the right because he was an atheist, that would be a prima facie actionable breach of the Constitutional assurance that there be no test of religion for any position.

 

Link plz

 

As I said, the link was in a previous post on this very thread. But, here it is again - Torcaso v Watkins (1961) 367 US 488 - Mr. Justice Black

 

anyways you can't sue on a hypothetical situation, there has to be something that has actually happened where the incident actually happened. You can't sue that you're being denied your rights if you lose the election so you wouldn't have been allowed to take the office anyways. The court would have to throw it out because they wouldn't have been allowed to hold the office anyways because they lost the election.

 

Yes, but that scenario is still inherently different from both the precedent AND the alternate situation - in neither is there any mention of losing the election.

 

And, I already discussed the doctrine on hypothetical cases. I am painfully well aware of it from my own studies of the law.

[True_Avery]

Agreed, actually I would argue that people that believe in God are discriminated against here.

This is senate. If you cannot present a full argument, then you may be challenged.

 

If you cannot present proof of your god, then it is an unreasonable claim. If you present god into an argument but cannot present anything else, then your argument can be debated to be based on superstition or speculation until solid proof or sources is given.

 

If you don't like it, then there are other forums on LF. If you feel like people do not agree with you (which no-one in the rules say anyone has to), then there are many christian forums which would be more than delighted to speak with you on such topics.

 

I can respect our belief in god in KOTOR, SWTOR, Feedback, General, etc. Any other forum. But in Senate, we have the ability to debate with one another and present arguments based on any reasoning we may have at the time. We are not here to coddle your beliefs or bring you comfort, as that is the job of your beliefs to do, not senate's.

 

But, if you want to present a reasoned argument on god and present solid proof of your gods existence, then I would be more than willing to speak about your god. But, seeing as I do not believe in your god, I have the right to call you on your current lack of proof.

 

Atheists are still a minority in the world, and you can feel free to walk along your majority road onto any places people would be willing to talk and accept your beliefs as truth (which, again, a good majority of the world is on your sie). They may not be a minority here as much, but they certainly are more vocal in the debate forum. So, in the end, if you don't like being in this particular corner of the internet where athiests are vocal... go to the other 80% of the world that agrees with you and would be more than willing to do so.

 

In the end, we bring any discomfort we feel upon ourselves by entering Senate and reading posts. If you feel the bottom 20% is oppressing you, then just leave to save yourself the discomfort.

[GarfieldJL]

This is senate. If you cannot present a full argument, then you may be challenged.

 

If you cannot present proof of your god, then it is an unreasonable claim. If you present god into an argument but cannot present anything else, then your argument can be debated to be based on superstition or speculation until solid proof or sources is given.

 

And you cannot disprove his existence either, and that's the interesting thing. We know there are things that exist that we cannot directly observe.

 

If you don't like it, then there are other forums on LF. If you feel like people do not agree with you (which no-one in the rules say anyone has to), then there are many christian forums which would be more than delighted to speak with you on such topics.

 

I don't care whether or not people agree with me, I don't take offense on that. I take offense to comments like people not being as intelligent as someone else based on beliefs.

 

I can respect our belief in god in KOTOR, SWTOR, Feedback, General, etc. Any other forum. But in Senate, we have the ability to debate with one another and present arguments based on any reasoning we may have at the time. We are not here to coddle your beliefs or bring you comfort, as that is the job of your beliefs to do, not senate's.

 

I have no argument with debating things, if you want to argue the existance of God, that's one thing, saying people aren't as intelligent because they believe in God is in my view Religious Discrimination. And that is what I'm referring to.