Persecuted Atheists Around the World

[cybercoma]

I think environmentalism with political power is dangerous. I want that added in too. Oh, and Marxism.

Yes, we need the government to tell us what ideas were allowed to act on politically, and which ones we can't.

Because it's such a taboo to criticize environmentalism or Marxism. Really going out on a limb there, Shady.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure, the law is a relic but it does have real effects - i.e. having to go through the "proper" channels for the marriage ceremony which includes the clergy but does not include a suitable secular alternative.

You can't do that in Ontario exactly, either. You need a justice-of-the-peace or a religious person associated with a building, if I remember from my getting married days.

There's no doubting it has real effects but the existence of the law says nothing about the power of religion in today's world, which I would argue is waning.

Oh, I didn't know that laws can't be change when they continue to be unjust and continue to allow the intrusion of church upon the state contrary to the very Constitution of the country that is being discussed here.

Of course they can't be changed. Of course it's not fair, but so what ? There are worse problems today, as I have pointed out. Though perhaps not, if you're an academic or well-heeled athiest.

[Mighty AC]

The power of religion is entirely nebulous and impossible to separate from the culture of the surrounding society. They couldn't pass a simple bill through the Senate because it encompassed a UN resolution. That's nothing to do with religion, but it's rooted in the same us-vs-them culture.[/Quote]

The political power of religion stems from its similarity to unions. They are organized, easily swayed and willing to cast their ballots in support of single issues. Politicians will always pander to organized blocks. The only way to reduce the power is to reduce their numbers.

It's the culture you don't like.

No, it's the political power of religion I don't like. If the religious simply lived their own lives according to their belief systems this topic would not interest me at all. However, religion is a political force intent on inserting its dogmatic beliefs into secular law, public policy and the curriculum.

[Michael Hardner]

The political power of religion stems from its similarity to unions. They are organized, easily swayed and willing to cast their ballots in support of single issues. Politicians will always pander to organized blocks. The only way to reduce the power is to reduce their numbers.

Who is trying to reduce their power or their numbers ? I don't even think that's a stated goal of Atheists.

No, it's the political power of religion I don't like. If the religious simply lived their own lives according to their belief systems this topic would not interest me at all. However, religion is a political force intent on inserting its dogmatic beliefs into secular law, public policy and the curriculum.

They could vote as a block anyway. If the religion didn't exist they'd still be conservative.

You want them to live their own lives, yet you yourself are trying to 'reduce their power' - is that right ?

Everybody wants political power. It's not really a problem that needs attention. I've pointed out other issues that I think are bigger problems.

[Mighty AC]

Who is trying to reduce their power or their numbers ? I don't even think that's a stated goal of Atheists. [/Quote] Nobody. It is my belief that we need to base more policy decisions on reason and evidence. I believe religion and its political power is at odds with this and that the situation will only improve with declining enrollment.

Atheists are not a group with goals or beliefs. It is simply a term that denotes a lack of belief in deities.

They could vote as a block anyway. If the religion didn't exist they'd still be conservative.[/Quote] Possibly, but presumably their reasons for voting will not be based on unsupportable ancient texts. I also presume they would not be using scripture to discriminate or deny demonstrable facts.

You want them to live their own lives, yet you yourself are trying to 'reduce their power' - is that right ?[/Quote] Yes. I have no problem with personal belief in fantasy. The problem arises when they have the power to insert their fantasy into public policy.

It's not really a problem that needs attention. I've pointed out other issues that I think are bigger problems.

I disagree.

[Michael Hardner]

Nobody. It is my belief that we need to base more policy decisions on reason and evidence. I believe religion and its political power is at odds with this and that the situation will only improve with declining enrollment.

So if religion declines then reason and evidence will improve ? Really. Religion CAUSES ignorance then. Ok.

Atheists are not a group with goals or beliefs. It is simply a term that denotes a lack of belief in deities.

Yet, they have representative groups that perform legal challenges on their behalf etc. They seem like a group to me.

Possibly, but presumably their reasons for voting will not be based on unsupportable ancient texts. I also presume they would not be using scripture to discriminate or deny demonstrable facts.

Superstition and prejudice exist apart from religion.

I disagree.

You're going after something that you *think* causes ignorance. Wouldn't it be better to focus on core problems such as lack of education, social cohesion in society ? I don't think allowing secularists to preside over weddings in Indiana will create any significant change in society, although it will be more fair.

[Guest]

It's "okay" to be intolerant ? Really ? How so ? Rather than put a stake in the ground with a nonsensical slogan printed on the flag, why not come forward with some specifics ?

The fact is that the grey area between religious rights and individual rights is trampled down with the boots of many previous battles. Try and pick a new angle - I dare you. We've likely covered in on here to the point of numbness. The area of discrimination against religious people, however, is a lot newer and therefore there are quite a few new angles to discuss. New grist for the mill.

Imagine a Christian group asking for a quiet room to go to pray a few times a day in a public place. It wouldn't cause outrage, and perhaps not even any controversy. But it would be a strange request, wouldn't you say ? It might raise eyebrows in the school administration ?

I hate it when I have to go to work in the middle of a conversation.

Of course it's okay to be intolerant. It's positively virtuous to be intolerant, if you are being intolerant of things that should not be tolerated.

In the original post I said intolerant of rabid intolerance. Still stands.

There is no new area. Religious intolerance is still there, still the same, and still rabid. And obviously, and I really mean obviously, it's not about a group asking for a quiet room for prayers. It might be a little if menstruation was a factor, but the intolerance I'm talking about involves acid, and bullets, and explosives, rope and knives.

But then, you knew that.

Edited December 13, 2012 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

There is no new area. Religious intolerance is still there, still the same, and still rabid. And obviously, and I really mean obviously, it's not about a group asking for a quiet room for prayers. It might be a little if menstruation was a factor, but the intolerance I'm talking about involves acid, and bullets, and explosives, rope and knives.

My advice is to focus on the root problem here. Ignorance and hate happen in spite of religion, and sometimes because of it. But I don't think religion is a root problem. Why would it be ?

And.. you had 9 1/2 hours between my post and your reply. Did it take that long for your to write your reply ? Sorry you have to work.

[Guest]

My advice is to focus on the root problem here. Ignorance and hate happen in spite of religion, and sometimes because of it. But I don't think religion is a root problem. Why would it be ?

And.. you had 9 1/2 hours between my post and your reply. Did it take that long for your to write your reply ? Sorry you have to work.

Eh? They won't let me reply when I'm at work. Not that they'd know, as I was in the bush between Edson and Whitecourt. But then, that presents its own problems with replying.

I assure you, that when I got home, as soon as I fed the dog and put some dinner on, I was on here like jam on toast.

Anyway, the original post was about persecution of atheists, which means intolerence by the religious.

You said there should be more religious tolerance. I see now that you might have meant more tolerance by religious people, of others, not more tolerance of religious people, by people like me. If that's what you meant, I agree. If you meant the latter, then I stand by my posts since.

[msj]

You can't do that in Ontario exactly, either. You need a justice-of-the-peace or a religious person associated with a building, if I remember from my getting married days.

There's no doubting it has real effects but the existence of the law says nothing about the power of religion in today's world, which I would argue is waning.

Of course they can't be changed. Of course it's not fair, but so what ? There are worse problems today, as I have pointed out. Though perhaps not, if you're an academic or well-heeled athiest.

Yes, so what?

If the law went the other way, if priests and rabbis and quakers were not allowed to perform marriage ceremonies and only "secular celebrants" were allowed then, all at once, you would understand how unjust the law is and would demand that it be changed to allow such things.

But, since you take your religious privilege for granted, this is just a "minor" thing.

An inconvenience.

A "so what if it's not fair" type of thing.

How very Christian of you. [And that is written both ironically and sarcastically at the same time]

[Mighty AC]

So if religion declines then reason and evidence will improve ? Really. Religion CAUSES ignorance then. Ok.[/Quote]

A fine leap to a conclusion there. I give it an 8.5, the crooked French judge rates it a 6. I hope that decreased reliance on ancient texts as an answer key and moral compass will lead to an increase in evidence based reasoning and humanism; but, you never can tell what will transpire.

Yet, they have representative groups that perform legal challenges on their behalf etc. They seem like a group to me.[/Quote] It would be like calling theists a group. There are several very different groups of theists, like Catholics, Sunnis, Jains, Sikhs, etc. but theists aren't a group. Atheists are hard to organize because the only common position the label requires is a lack of belief in deities. There are no atheist beliefs, dogma, rituals, etc. There are groups atheists can join that are dedicated to promoting things like the separation of church and state. I think the American Atheists have a whopping 2,500 members.

You're going after something that you *think* causes ignorance.[/Quote] No, I don't think religion causes ignorance. It can undermine trust in the scientific method, promote misconceptions, layer twisted unreasonable narratives over evidence, or even teach blatant fallacies but religion itself is not an excuse for ignorance.

Wouldn't it be better to focus on core problems such as lack of education, social cohesion in society ?[/Quote]One, that statement is ridiculous. Two, I think the fact that the majority of the people on this planet believe in magical beings is a core problem. Three, I think the fact that religious leaders commanding millions of members have the ear of some of the most powerful decision makers on earth is a very serious problem.

I don't think allowing secularists to preside over weddings in Indiana will create any significant change in society, although it will be more fair.

Yes I doubt weddings in Indiana make much of a difference. However, preventing stem cell research or access to birth control in Africa probably does.

[msj]

Ok, let's move on to something of more consequence then.

This Egyptian has been convicted for blasphemy and has been sentenced to 3 years in prison.

That goes beyond simple religious privilege. That's real persecution.

[Guest]

That's as long as the fellow in the other thread got for stabbing his kids to death.

Edited December 13, 2012 by bcsapper

[The_Squid]

That's as long as the fellow in the other thread got for stabbing his kids to death.

Not criminally responsible

[dre]

It's "okay" to be intolerant ? Really ? How so ? Rather than put a stake in the ground with a nonsensical slogan printed on the flag, why not come forward with some specifics ?

Being critical is different than being intolerant.

If I tell you that you are a moron to do the things you do then Im being critical. Its only when I take action to stop you from doing those things that I become intolerant.

[The_Squid]

Persecuted cuz they have no songs....

[kimmy]

Probably really really old laws that have not been updated. Because they'd never survive a constitutional court challenge.

True. They are old laws, and they have not survived court challenges.

However, I think we all know that if a state constitution said "no Jew shall hold public office", saying "oh, it's an old law, we don't enforce that anymore" would not keep people from pointing out how offensive it is.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

However, I think we all know that if a state constitution said "no Jew shall hold public office", saying "oh, it's an old law, we don't enforce that anymore" would not keep people from pointing out how offensive it is.

The question, though, is could you use the existence of said law to show the continuing dominance of anti-Semites in society today ? That is analgous to what we're saying here.

[Michael Hardner]

You said there should be more religious tolerance. I see now that you might have meant more tolerance by religious people, of others, not more tolerance of religious people, by people like me. If that's what you meant, I agree. If you meant the latter, then I stand by my posts since.

I'm not sure what I meant what I posted it, but what I should have meant (?) is that all sides should be tolerant of each other - religious, atheist whatever.

[msj]

The question, though, is could you use the existence of said law to show the continuing dominance of anti-Semites in society today ? That is analgous to what we're saying here.

The extent to which the "old law" prevents Jews from attaining public office, in this fictional example, then the answer is a definite "yes."

[kimmy]

The question, though, is could you use the existence of said law to show the continuing dominance of anti-Semites in society today ? That is analgous to what we're saying here.

I think legislative reluctance to change such a law would in itself be evidence of ongoing anti-Semitism.

In North Carolina, after an atheist named Cecil Bothwell won a seat on a city council in 2009; some of his defeated opponents complained and cited the state constitution as a reason to have him disqualified. The city recognized the futility of attempting legal action and Bothwell was allowed to serve, however I think the fact that this even happened illustrates a problem.

One of the arguments advanced was along the lines of "it's not about religion. It's about respect for our state constitution! Bothwell is openly disobeying our state constitution! He's not unfit to serve because he's an atheist, he's unfit to serve because he does not respect our state constitution."

Symbolic or not, it's offensive and wrong.

-k

Edited December 14, 2012 by kimmy

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, so what?

Yes, exactly. I'll reiterate: so what. It's not fair but how much of a priority should it be really ?

If the law went the other way, if priests and rabbis and quakers were not allowed to perform marriage ceremonies and only "secular celebrants" were allowed then, all at once, you would understand how unjust the law is and would demand that it be changed to allow such things.

Sort of. If they PASSED such a law today then I would think it was quite unfair. Just as marriage laws should be cleaned up to remove interracial marriage prohibitions. If they're on the books, they should be removed but the fact that they still exist doesn't mean that they're still enforced.

My point here is that these are old laws, that will be removed when the time comes.

I`ll reiterate my point from above:

"the existence of the law says nothing about the power of religion in today's world, which I would argue is waning."

But, since you take your religious privilege for granted, this is just a "minor" thing.

An inconvenience.

A "so what if it's not fair" type of thing.

How very Christian of you. [And that is written both ironically and sarcastically at the same time]

Wait a second - what`s going on here ? Why are you personalizing this to me ? It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs - I'm not sure how that slipped in there. If you think that it does, you're just wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

I think legislative reluctance to change such a law would in itself be evidence of ongoing anti-Semitism.

-k

Maybe... maybe not. When did they remove laws against interracial marriage from the books in Alabama ? Is the late date evidence of past racism ? Of course.

Of current racism ? Not as clear. It is if you measure it relative to other states that passed similar laws earlier, but if you measure it on a larger timescale it's also evidence of the decline of racism in that particular state over 50 years.

This is what I'm saying - religion is on the decline, and as such the focus on religious rights will change from ensuring that a non-religious minority is protected, to ensuring that a religious minority is protected.

[Michael Hardner]

The extent to which the "old law" prevents Jews from attaining public office, in this fictional example, then the answer is a definite "yes."

I disagree. If the law is simply ignored, then its just a relic. Furthermore, in the example we`re talking about there are just more important things to deal with presently.

[Shady]

I think legislative reluctance to change such a law would in itself be evidence of ongoing anti-Semitism.

In North Carolina, after an atheist named Cecil Bothwell won a seat on a city council in 2009; some of his defeated opponents complained and cited the state constitution as a reason to have him disqualified. The city recognized the futility of attempting legal action and Bothwell was allowed to serve, however I think the fact that this even happened illustrates a problem.

One of the arguments advanced was along the lines of "it's not about religion. It's about respect for our state constitution! Bothwell is openly disobeying our state constitution! He's not unfit to serve because he's an atheist, he's unfit to serve because he does not respect our state constitution."

Symbolic or not, it's offensive and wrong.

-k

It's not legislative reluctance. It's legislative ignorance. Nobody knows about these laws.