|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Are atheists a persecuted group?
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
BD
How about contacting your denoms power players and suggesting they use THEIR tv shows, publications, whatever, etc. to denounce stupid statements by televangelists, etc. as soon as they make them.
How about starting a blog about "nice" christianity" denouncing same? God knows the religious right here can provide you with material all the time. Just check out Focus on the Family and other organizations/links regularly.
How about starting a group at your church that does great things and getting it noticed by the media. When asked why you are doing it, say "We see so much bad publicity for Christians from (name of televangelist) we thought we would show people another side of us."
Or whatever.
Please do not sit there and say "I do not know what more you would have me do". It sounds, frankly, weak. Even if you are arguing your points on a thread, that is SOMETHING. But better is to actively engage in processes to get the word out to the media.
One of the best things I saw during the whole Katrina thing was an article on how the Hippie Food Banks and the Christian Evangelicals had set aside their differences to help the poor people with food banks in New Orleans. This is the kind of thing that needs to be seen more.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
benjdm
Shipmate
# 11779
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
I only outed myself in the last year or two. Atheist carries a serious social stigma here.
Again, this is just not true where I live. Atheist is normal around here.
I am not citing local statistics. My personal experiences since I have outed myself have been nothing special - no problems. I do know plenty of coworkers and friends who will not out themselves, and the truly horrible experiences I read about are all from bible-belt areas.
Or are you pointing out that you are citing your local experiences ? I'm confused.
quote:
Perhaps it's due to the fact that Americans generally have a very difficult time seeing things from another's point of view? (It's an interesting study, BTW.)
Interesting. I'd love to take some sort of test like that and see how I did.
Posts: 357 | From: Northeastern U.S. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
I am not citing local statistics. My personal experiences since I have outed myself have been nothing special - no problems. I do know plenty of coworkers and friends who will not out themselves, and the truly horrible experiences I read about are all from bible-belt areas.
Or are you pointing out that you are citing your local experiences ? I'm confused.
You said that "Atheist carries a serious social stigma here." Since you say you're not citing local statistics, then what does "here" mean? The U.S. generally?
Well, that's my point. I am citing local experiences, yes - and I'm saying so explicitly. It's just not true from my point of view that "atheism carries a serious social stigma here." It's not true in most large cities or metropolitan areas in the U.S. (I can't say, for the South, having never lived there.)
Anyway, isn't "persecution" a little bit over the top, even in places like the Bible-belt? Even though there's still plenty of prejudice against gay people I'd never call it "persecution." And we're not going to have a gay President anytime soon, either, you know.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
benjdm
Shipmate
# 11779
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
I am not citing local statistics. My personal experiences since I have outed myself have been nothing special - no problems. I do know plenty of coworkers and friends who will not out themselves, and the truly horrible experiences I read about are all from bible-belt areas.
Or are you pointing out that you are citing your local experiences ? I'm confused.
You said that "Atheist carries a serious social stigma here." Since you say you're not citing local statistics, then what does "here" mean? The U.S. generally?
That is what I meant, yes. It wasn't very clear though.
quote:
Anyway, isn't "persecution" a little bit over the top, even in places like the Bible-belt?
I agree and stated as such in my first post in the thread. (Link)
"I would not consider myself persecuted nor would I consider atheists as a group persecuted in the U.S. Culturally ostracized, probably, but we have plenty of company there."
quote:
Even though there's still plenty of prejudice against gay people I'd never call it "persecution." And we're not going to have a gay President anytime soon, either, you know.
I would say gays would be closer to being persecuted...not sure I would say they are, not sure I would say they aren't. They are denied civil rights based on being gay, in my opinion, and I am not. They poll as more accepted than atheists, though. There were openly gay congressmen before openly atheist ones and there have been more of them.
Posts: 357 | From: Northeastern U.S. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wulfstan
Shipmate
# 558
|
Posted
MG said:
quote:
Studies Show that atheists are more despised than homosexuals and muslims in America.
Except that wasn't "studies" plural, it was one study, with a pitifully small sample frame: 2000 against a country of, what, 250 million? Done by phone.
quote:
All I am saying is that atheists get shit done to them, even if it is only social stigma. That's why they hide it. Being thrown out of families, not being able to marry someone, firings, whatever. That is all persecution to me.
But this sort of thing happens to all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. I've no reason to believe that it happens to atheists unduly often, and your rhetoric is way ahead of your evidence.
How about you show stats comparing assaults on atheists with assaults on Muslims and/or homosexuals?
Further, that study, if true, just shows that a lot of people don't really like atheism. But you approvingly quote Dawkins who detests all religions and views them as contemptible. How are his views about religious people so much better than those cited in your study?
Also, I seem to remember a while back, someone made a comment on one of the boards about how they wouldn't want to employ a conservative Christian, and was promptly called to Hell for it. Can anyone remind me who that was, or if the thread still exists? And would you, MG, support that attitude?
Could we really trust someone who approves of Dawkins, and his rather extreme views, not to discriminate against a Christian in some way?
[code]
[ 30. July 2007, 20:12: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 418 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Would you talk about a belief you held if you knew that you could never hold public office if it got out? If Christians (which is a huge portion of the population) practically couldn't resist arguing and or being condescending to you? If it got to your boss you might be fired? If people might actually keep their children from being around you?
I think not....
You'd think right, I wouldn't say a thing.
Looking back to my experience of living in the US, during the very late 90s, when I think about it I can actually imagine something similar to the situation you describe in the parts of the country I hung out in (Virginia, Indiana), though I would struggle to see it in DC. At the very least atheists might have a hard time being taken seriously or they may encounter judgmentalism for their godlessness, etc. There is definitely a tendency for theocracy in the States, at a local level anyway, which you just don't get here in the UK (ironic, really, given our history and the fact that - technically anyway - the Anglican church is still represented in Westminster, but then perhaps we have simply grown through that and on into agnosticism/pluralism).
Why not send your atheist friends to the UK for a vacation? So long as they don't mind swimming through infected water every now and again, have sturdy wellies and umbrellas, then they should get a boost, as atheists seem to do perfectly well over here. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) I actually used to recommend to my evangelical Christian friends that they take a vacation in the States to give them a boost! (Although while Christians here in the UK are often ridiculed and in some workplaces there can be a measure of discrimination, they in no way are persecuted)
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
I would say gays would be closer to being persecuted...not sure I would say they are, not sure I would say they aren't. They are denied civil rights based on being gay, in my opinion, and I am not. They poll as more accepted than atheists, though. There were openly gay congressmen before openly atheist ones and there have been more of them.
Sorry, I meant to say I was addressing my "persecution" comment to the thread in general, not to you in particular. I just think it devalues real persecution when people say things like this. Prejudice, sure; nobody would quarrel with that.
It's interesting what you say about "openly atheist," though. Does that go to say that being atheist affects a person's life each and every day, the way being gay does (in living with a partner, say, something the culture in some places does not approve of)? How could that be? I'm a "person of faith," you would say - but I have periods of doubt as well. And again, I've been atheist in the past, and I don't remember it affecting my life at all, let alone anywhere close to the way being gay did.
And is it really true that there haven't been any atheist congresspeople? I can't imagine that's true, in the whole history of the U.S.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
benjdm
Shipmate
# 11779
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's interesting what you say about "openly atheist," though. Does that go to say that being atheist affects a person's life each and every day, the way being gay does (in living with a partner, say, something the culture in some places does not approve of)? How could that be? I'm a "person of faith," you would say - but I have periods of doubt as well. And again, I've been atheist in the past, and I don't remember it affecting my life at all, let alone anywhere close to the way being gay did.
I agree that atheism is much easier to hide than homosexuality. Much, much easier. In those terms there is no comparison.
quote:
And is it really true that there haven't been any atheist congresspeople? I can't imagine that's true, in the whole history of the U.S.
None (unlikely) or none who were unwilling to hide it (likely.) When the Secular Coalition for America announced their contest to find the highest-ranking U.S. politician who was a non-theist, few thought the politician would be as high-ranking as a Congressman.
Press release outing the Congressman
quote:
...In October, 2006 the Secular Coalition for America, a national lobby representing the interests of atheists, humanists, freethinkers, and other nontheists, announced a contest. At the time, few if any elected officials, even at the lowest level, would self-identify as a nontheist. So the Coalition offered $1,000 to the person who could identify the highest level atheist, agnostic, humanist or any other kind of nontheist currently holding elected public office in the United States.
In addition to Rep. Stark only three other elected officials agreed to do so: Terry S. Doran, president of the School Board in Berkeley, Calif.; Nancy Glista on the School Committee in Franklin, Maine; and Michael Cerone, a Town Meeting Member from Arlington, Mass...
Posts: 357 | From: Northeastern U.S. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Thanks for the info.
[ 28. July 2007, 14:26: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(I'm actually surprised, though, that past eras haven't produced more atheists in U.S. politics - particularly, maybe, from the Eastern cities and the mountain West.
This woman is listed as atheist at Wikipedia, and has worked on behalf of "America's atheists, freethinkers, humanists, and other nontheists through media appearances and speaking engagements." So there's another.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What does it mean to be "openly Atheist" -- do you wear a button on your lapel that says "Atheist"? Have signs in a swirly font in your cubicle that say "God Doesn't Exist"?
How often does one stand around with other people and talk about exactly what one's beliefs and worldview are? Is that normal office scuttlebutt where you are?
When a gay person "comes out" it isn't to society in general (unless they're famous) but to their family and friends. Not to the guys at work who stand around the water cooler and talk about the boss's inanities.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Wulfstan
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
2000 people is well within the acceptable, if not exceeding the operating bounds of a scientific study. Done by the University of Minnesota no less. That it was done by phone is so irrelevant, it is well, humorous. Phone can actually assist such studies due to the anonymity required to get people to disclose such personal information.
I smell a logical fallacy. Clearly no one is going to be able to pull a study to match an abitrary criteria you select, no matter how well intentioned, unless someone has happened to have completed that study. The atheist study is very recent. Article Here. This is clearly a relatively new finding. In addition, if atheists are smart enough to stay "in the closet" how are they going to be assaulted to be studied to satisy your criteria?
Frankly, I do not grant you that assaults are the sole criteria for "persecution" at all. I also do not grant you that "this sort of thing happens to all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons" is cause to disregard it. Sexual harrassment happens to all sorts of people to. I doubt you would be inclined to dismiss that on those grounds.
I do not appreciate it when people expel people from church. I do not appreciate it when people get expelled from their families because of relgion. I do not appreciate it when people get expelled from the same for a lack of religion. YMMV.
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
....you approvingly quote Dawkins who detests all religions and views them as contemptible. How are his views about religious people so much better than those cited in your study?
First, I do not grant you your assertion here. My statements are much more subtle than Dawkins, even when I may or MAY NOT agree with him. You will have to provide better examples if you want to misquote me.
More seriously, Dawkins does not detest all relgions, he doesn't have much to say against Buddhism at all, and basically says so. His reasons are much more varied, and supported I might add, than the simple assertion you have made.
There is a significant difference between a religion such as Christianity and wht is going on with Atheism/Atheists. Christians in America are the significant majority. Why is this relevant? Because in a democracy, or at least our democracy, we protect the minority opinion from oppression. All voices get to be heard. All opinions get a say. No one should have their ability to run for public office or whatever suppressed because they are a minority of any flavor. I don't care of you worship the devil, or if you are brown. You don't get suppressed.
If the majority has to put up with harsh and frankly, often correct, criticism from the minority or from Dawkins, poor babies. You get to vote in your people and put them on the Supreme Court because your the majority right now. When the atheists are in charge and call the shots, I'll feel sorry for you. Until then, Christians should stop playing the martyr, in America. Your about 1800 years too late for that.
I am sympathetic BTW where Christians are killed or persecuted in other lands. No one should ahve to put up with that. Even if they are wrong. quote:
Also, I seem to remember a while back, someone made a comment on one of the boards about how they wouldn't want to employ a conservative Christian, and was promptly called to Hell for it. Can anyone remind me who that was, or if the thread still exists? And would you, MG, support that attitude?
No I would not. I have employed conservative Christians. quote:
Could we really trust someone who approves of Dawkins, and his rather extreme views, not to discriminate against a Christian in some way?
Spot the logical fallacy.
[ 28. July 2007, 15:36: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
benjdm
Shipmate
# 11779
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
What does it mean to be "openly Atheist" -- do you wear a button on your lapel that says "Atheist"? Have signs in a swirly font in your cubicle that say "God Doesn't Exist"?
To me, all it means is you don't lie when you answer questions. When someone asks "What church do you go to ?" or asks if your son will be in the Boy Scouts or things like that.
Posts: 357 | From: Northeastern U.S. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
benjdm
Shipmate
# 11779
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(I'm actually surprised, though, that past eras haven't produced more atheists in U.S. politics - particularly, maybe, from the Eastern cities and the mountain West.
This woman is listed as atheist at Wikipedia, and has worked on behalf of "America's atheists, freethinkers, humanists, and other nontheists through media appearances and speaking engagements." So there's another.)
She's a lobbyist, the first lobbyist for America's atheists, freethinkers, etc. The organization was only founded in 2005.
Posts: 357 | From: Northeastern U.S. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wulfstan
Shipmate
# 558
|
Posted
MG said:
quote:
2000 people is well within the acceptable, if not exceeding the operating bounds of a scientific study.
Well that's debatable, I think it's a bit small to prove your assertions. The US is a big place, and it certainly won't show regional variations. A bigger, triangulated study including some more detailed qualitative data would be more valuable. Anonymity shouldn't be an issue, there are ways of ensuring it.
quote:
Clearly no one is going to be able to pull a study to match an abitrary criteria you select, no matter how well intentioned, unless someone has happened to have completed that study.
True, but it's not an arbitrary criteria. You're claiming persecution, which is a strong term. The only evidence you've come up with is a small survey showing that a fair number have a low opinion of atheists. This in no way proves persecution. You're trying to use the absence of evidence as proof that people are scared to "come out" as atheists. But as I've said already, there is an absence of people prepared to come out as Morris Dancers. Does that mean they are persecuted too? Absence of evidence is just that, lack of proof, and is therefore indicative of squat.
You complain I misrepresent you but this:
quote:
Frankly, I do not grant you that assaults are the sole criteria for "persecution" at all.
is complete misrepresentation. It is not THE criteria, but it is a significant one. It shows people are prepared to take their prejudices beyond the law and try and surpress their targets with force. Similarly:
quote:
I also do not grant you that "this sort of thing happens to all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons" is cause to disregard it.
Is gross misrepresentation. What I was suggesting was that discrimination for varied personal reasons is a more GENERALIZED problem within which the few anecdotes you have managed to produce would fit. The solution there would be better legal aid and perhaps better trade unions to support legal action on behalf of those discriminated against.
quote:
My statements are much more subtle than Dawkins, even when I may or MAY NOT agree with him.
quote:
I doubt it under this Christo-fascist administration and its court, but maybe
quote:
If the majority has to put up with harsh and frankly, often correct, criticism from the minority or from Dawkins, poor babies. You get to vote in your people and put them on the Supreme Court because your the majority right now. When the atheists are in charge and call the shots, I'll feel sorry for you. Until then, Christians should stop playing the martyr, in America.
Yeah real subtle. If, in that tirade, "you" meant me, then it's ill-directed. I'm a liberal who is so left it's probably off your scale, and I'm on the wrong side of the pond anyway. I also think Dawkins' somewhat hysterical drivel is entirely counter-productive anyway, by making atheism fit the aggressive caricature that the religious right have of it.
quote:
I do not appreciate it when people expel people from church.
Hmmm. Y'see this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's utterly vague and doesn't give reasons. And it's a bit authoritarian. If you're not a member of whatever church it is, how is it your business? The RCs won't have me 'cos I'm pro-choice and disagree with their entire ecclesiology, should they be made to take me?
quote:
There is a significant difference between a religion such as Christianity and wht is going on with Atheism/Atheists. Christians in America are the significant majority. Why is this relevant? Because in a democracy, or at least our democracy, we protect the minority opinion from oppression.
Well I can point to plenty of examples where you've fallen short on that last bit. I'm just not convinced atheists are one of them.
quote:
All voices get to be heard. All opinions get a say. No one should have their ability to run for public office or whatever suppressed because they are a minority of any flavor. I don't care of you worship the devil, or if you are brown. You don't get suppressed.
But atheists can run for public office. They might not get elected, but then that's democracy. It seems you're more concerned that people don't like atheists much and so might not vote for them. But that's hardly persecution, just personal preference.
I would maintain what I said about your views regarding conservative Christians. The mainstay of your argument has been that a majority of your countrymen (not mine thank God) have a low opinion of atheists. You haven't got clear proof that they translate this into illegal action i.e. discrimination. But since you seem to have an equally low opinion of the "Christo-fascists" (a light-hearted term of affection I'm sure) it does seem like you're in a glass house here. Albeit a minority glass house.
Posts: 418 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Sorry if I overlooked this somewhere but how common are 'true' atheists?
I can't trust my memory but even here I don't recall many (any?) who wouldn't be more accurately described as agnostic: they don't assert beyond doubt there is no God.
Maybe some of the grief the 'true' atheists get is comparable to the grief the religious fundies get - society is generally quite skeptical of their allegations of certainties where none are apparent.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Wolfistan
2000 national survey data (read the study I cited) from a University including survey data conducted by a renowned pollster (Gallup), and to normal scientific tolerances is more than most got around here, I can assure you. And if it's not good enough for you, well I'm afraid your not going to get very far with any argument your making, until you present contradictory evidence that shows otherwise. Welcome to Purg.
Trade Unions for atheists? How novel. Your knowledge of our trade unions is UK based. Which is to say, they don't protect individuals over here very well (which is to say Shitty or not at all). They protect the union. If the union was entirely composed of atheists, well then THAT would be something the Union could handle.
Actually I would be interested in your preception of how the U.S. has "fallen short" in your opinion. Recent cases please.
"You" meant Christians, in America.
As for authoritarian churches that expel people, yes, I am/was a member of one. I had 16 years of it stuffed down my throat. I am not only immenently qualified to judge that church, I am adequately qualified to judge Christianity in general, using you own texts if need be. As such, I will call a spade a spade and make it my "business" to call them on it as I see fit. As I have said before, don't even dare to think anyone can question my "business" when it comes to this. You (Christians) haven't got what it takes to stop me. And you won't, so drop it.
The expel I was referring to, involves throwing out members for slight disagreements. Not huge issues like abortion.
As for your last paragraph. It is now clear you don't live here. You have no idea what it's like to be a minority with an Administration that acts like it has a mandate from the gods. Truly. It is disgusting at times.
It is also clear that as a member of the Majority in question, you will probably be happy with whatever form of lesser-status I should point out here against atheists. It is okay with you that "people don't like atheists much". Well that's not how America works with these issues. We do not allow threats to religious liberty, even when those liberties are for the lack of religion. We do not say "that's democracy" because we do have rules protecting the minorities, even if Justice is slow at times.
206,
Accoring to the atheist non-study ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) I cited earlier:
quote:
In the 2000 GSS, only about 3
percent of Americans affirm that “I don’t believe
in God,” perhaps the best direct indicator of
being an atheist, while another 4.1 percent agree
with the statement “I don’t know whether there
is a God and I don’t believe there is any way to
find out.” Taken together, these “skeptics,” as
Hout and Fischer (2002) call them, make up
only 7 percent of the population. In fact, only
about 1 percent of Americans self-identify as
“atheist” or “agnostic,” according to Kosmin et
al. (2001). This gap may indicate that many
skeptics do hold some form of religious belief,
or it may signal the stigma attached to the atheist
label.
So, atheists are about 7 percent, 6 percent of which are closeted. Gee I wonder why they are nearly all hiding.....
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
As for authoritarian churches that expel people, yes, I am/was a member of one. I had 16 years of it stuffed down my throat.
Dude! I didn't know you'd been 'disinvited' from a church - it's quite the exclusive club...
I used to know this old guy who was pretty sharp that once got tossed out of a bar for being rowdy. As they ejected him his last comment was 'I've been thrown out of better places than this'.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
LOL.
No, sorry I wasn't clear on that. I haven't been ejected as of yet. The particular church that I still occasionally attend is so open minded as to be amazing. I think you'd have to be psychotic for them to eject you. It is a rare and precious place in that regard in an otherwise morally bankrupt institution.
I can otherwise assure you that I am not fit to go through the doors of any Christian Church with the exception of Unitarian Universalist, and would be expelled if I opened my mouth at many, if not most of them, strictly based upon my beliefs were I to share them.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beautiful Dreamer
Shipmate
# 10880
|
Posted
For what it is worth, I don't think you would be expelled from my church. You might feel uncomfortable taking the Eucharist, but no one would stop you. But then, if you are not a Christian, then why would you want to go to begin with? Do you go to make someone else happy? I know of people who mainly go to church for this reason.
I myself was not always a Christian, but the time I was an atheist was quite long ago and I was rather young, so my experience is probably not what yours is. I was seen as something strange and a target for preaching (which was irritating) but was not what I would call persecuted. And I live in the Bible Belt. But, as I said, your mileage may vary. If I were an adult atheist, things might have been different.
For the record, I think I can count on one hand the number of people I know who are true atheists. And any static they get could be a reaction to something they did, since they happen to be rather blatant and abrasive about it. One person even so much as told me that the reason he is an atheist is because he is intelligent, and if I were intelligent I would be an atheist too. How endearing. The rest are actually agnostic in that they don't *think* a God exists, but the are not *sure*. Most simply don't care. This is not to say that all atheists who get static deserve it, but in the case of the person I mentioned, he brings it on himself so has nothing to complain about. Maybe he is one of the 'freaks' you need to be policing. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'll police the Christian freaks in my midst, you police the atheist ones in yours. Deal?
[ 29. July 2007, 22:53: Message edited by: Beautiful_Dreamer ]
--------------------
More where that came from
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
Posts: 6028 | From: Outside Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beautiful Dreamer
Shipmate
# 10880
|
Posted
And the person who made the lovely comments I mentioned is someone who wanted to be my boyfriend, but part of the reason he was not was the attitude. I have no problem with atheists or anyone else of any other religion, provided they have respect for me and my beliefs. This person clearly did not. You, Mad Geo, have shown a good deal of respect despite the differences in opinion. Thank you!
--------------------
More where that came from
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
Posts: 6028 | From: Outside Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
benjdm
Shipmate
# 11779
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
Sorry if I overlooked this somewhere but how common are 'true' atheists?
I can't trust my memory but even here I don't recall many (any?) who wouldn't be more accurately described as agnostic: they don't assert beyond doubt there is no God.
That would start a whole semantic argument about atheist vs. agnostic. Do you really want to beat that dead horse ? Also, checking the dictionary, none of the 5 definitions mention certainty. They all refer to belief by itself. If someone puts the chances of a God existing at 49%, they can honestly call themselves an atheist, I think.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
Posts: 357 | From: Northeastern U.S. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
MG said:
quote:
2000 people is well within the acceptable, if not exceeding the operating bounds of a scientific study.
Well that's debatable, I think it's a bit small to prove your assertions. The US is a big place, and it certainly won't show regional variations. A bigger, triangulated study including some more detailed qualitative data would be more valuable. Anonymity shouldn't be an issue, there are ways of ensuring it.
Actually 2000 is very good. Most political polls (such as those to determine who is going to win the next presidential election) have sample sizes under 1500. Phone surveys have become a bit problematic since more people have given up their land lines for cell phones (surveys don't get to call cell phones), but it's probably at least as good as every other study done by the same methods in recent years.
If I were an atheist, and did something rash like write a letter to the editor stating my belief, I'm pretty sure there would be consequences--potential clients wouldn't come to me, some colleagues would stop referring to me. Of course, it would be even worse if I were openly gay. I've taken enough of a risk by having bumper stickers for Democrats on my car in a town this conservative. Persecution is a strong word, though, and I'd hesitate to use it for that.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
benjdm
Shipmate
# 11779
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
Sorry if I overlooked this somewhere but how common are 'true' atheists?
I can't trust my memory but even here I don't recall many (any?) who wouldn't be more accurately described as agnostic: they don't assert beyond doubt there is no God.
In addition, does this go both ways ? Do you have to assert beyond doubt there is a Christian God in order to be a 'true' Christian ?
Posts: 357 | From: Northeastern U.S. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beautiful Dreamer
Shipmate
# 10880
|
Posted
Mad Geo, I wrote an entry in my blog about policing our freaks. You might want to read it.
--------------------
More where that came from
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
Posts: 6028 | From: Outside Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wulfstan
Shipmate
# 558
|
Posted
Okay, lets try this once more from the top.
For persecution
I would expect to see one or more of the following:
1: Unusually high instances of violence against said group.
2: Officially sanctioned and OPEN discrimination, in terms of refusing job/educational opportunities.
3: Evidence that said group had unusually high representation in the poorest classes/poorest housing etc
I'm sure there are other categories, but you get the idea.
So when MG says:
quote:
Actually I would be interested in your preception of how the U.S. has "fallen short" in your opinion. Recent cases please.
We're talking about non-whites until about 40 years ago (maybe still in some areas), left-wingers around the McCarthyite period and probably a good way either side, and homosexuals, for most of your (and everyone elses')history. Less so now, but only less so.
You say:
quote:
More seriously, it has often been my observation that word inflation and other hyperbole-laden things are the only things that get peoples attention in this Jerry Springer Era. One has to "burn bras" in order to get crap corrected.
No, it's insulting to those who have suffered real persecution, and it makes you sound intemperate and silly.
Timothy, I think your points are well made. The surveys mentioned do strongly suggest that atheists suffer from a lack of respect and are obviously misunderstood, as well as sometimes suffering covert discrimination. In this they are at home with people of the wrong political persuasion, especially lefties, Muslims, RCs (in certain areas) and others, so I don't see atheists as a particularly special case.
As Timothy said though:
quote:
Persecution is a strong word, though, and I'd hesitate to use it for that.
The problem of this kind of covert discrimination is therefore real, and by no means limited to atheists. How you deal with it is a problem, for which you offer no solutions. Better legal aid would be one possibility, better trade unions another (and note the word "better" here). If you don't like 'em what's your alternative?
Mg went on to say:
quote:
As for authoritarian churches that expel people, yes, I am/was a member of one. I had 16 years of it stuffed down my throat. I am not only immenently qualified to judge that church, I am adequately qualified to judge Christianity in general, using you own texts if need be. As such, I will call a spade a spade and make it my "business" to call them on it as I see fit. As I have said before, don't even dare to think anyone can question my "business" when it comes to this. You (Christians) haven't got what it takes to stop me. And you won't, so drop it.
Y'see I haven't a clue what you're on about here. You seem to be objecting, rather forcefully, to people being excluded from churches. Does this mean you are suggesting churches should be regulated by the state and banned from expelling people? It seems to be what you're implying, and I think it's a bit extreme. But that's probably just me. As for you being "adequately qualified to judge Christianity", I wouldn't claim that for myself, and you'll have to forgive me if I'm sceptical about you.
quote:
It is also clear that as a member of the Majority in question, you will probably be happy with whatever form of lesser-status I should point out here against atheists.
Again, you're caricaturing me in the way that you object people doing to you. I could probably exist in ECUSA, but I've argued vociferously in favour of gay bishops, so I don't think I'd be too popular with the Southern Baptists. And of course I'm not happy with the way atheism is viewed in the US. The likes of Dawkins however, and your increasingly shrill posts do the cause no good I suspect, any more than having The Trinity Broadcasting Network beamed into the UK by satellite helps to revive Christianity in the UK. It just presents an unpleasant stereotype that turns people off even more.
quote:
Well that's not how America works with these issues. We do not allow threats to religious liberty, even when those liberties are for the lack of religion.
Except according to you, the US is doing precisely that. You're contradicting yourself surely? If you could try and work out what you actually do mean with a few possible solutions, I think this would all go a lot more smoothly.
Posts: 418 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
In addition, does this go both ways ? Do you have to assert beyond doubt there is a Christian God in order to be a 'true' Christian ?
Not by my definition but I presume I'm in the minority plus we'd have to get into what is a 'true' Christian and life is too short.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
The fact that some theists deny atheists may feel persecuted is very revealing.
Christians have suffered persecution proper. Being fed to the lions can’t have been nice. They have their own war-wounds, so they should know persecution when they see it.
Perhaps the problem here is with the definition of ‘persecution’. Compared to the historical persecution of Christians, my own experience of the modern-day disadvantages of being an atheist is pale indeed. I wouldn’t necessarily call it persecution, myself, though I cannot speak for other atheists. ‘Disadvantage’, I call it.
What I’m interested in here, though, is the hypocrisy of Christians (who have themselves endured persecution, and whose ideology is supposed to be compassion and tolerance) when they deny the legitimacy of atheists’ claims of persecution. How can they claim to know whether what atheists feel is real or not? In being outside a group which says it feels persecuted, discriminated against, or disadvantaged in some way, how can they deny it?
Their opinions surely cannot contest the authority of personal experience. Theists often claim personal experience amounts to evidence of the existence of their God, no less. They may deny that the atheist experience of persecution is real, and they may deny that it constitutes ‘persecution’ anyway. But they have only their opinions with which to contest the opinions of those who have the authority of personal experience. And which seems more likely in the full wisdom of knowledge- the fantastic existence of God, or the terribly ordinary persecution of humans by humans?
The Christian denial of atheist persecution is a bit like the later abusing of the formerly abused. By denying persecution they’re ironically behaving in a persecutory way, like someone who’s once been bullied and who’s now in a position to enjoy a little poetic justice of their own: they often become bullies themselves. To see the worm turn and bite the bird gives us all a little thrill inside- a frisson of smug satisfaction. "Everyone else damned well should feel what it’s like to be persecuted, because we were!" Christians have been persecuted for two millennia and it must be rather pleasant secretly to imagine others getting just a little taste of the same. Go on- admit it.
Christians clearly haven’t learnt much from their own persecution. Evidently, they’re only as fallible as the rest of us humans- just a whole lot more hypocritical.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
In my country (and yours too, I believe?) the catholics have recently been told that their adoption centres will be shut down in two years, to comply with government dogma.
Atheists aren't persecuted. They do, however, have to live in a world with lots of people who disagree with them and seek to make their beliefs felt. That's not persecution, that's just life.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wulfstan
Shipmate
# 558
|
Posted
DogWonderer said:
quote:
Perhaps the problem here is with the definition of ‘persecution’.
Yup.
quote:
I wouldn’t necessarily call it persecution, myself, though I cannot speak for other atheists. ‘Disadvantage’, I call it.
In the parts of the US quite possibly in the UK I think it's absurd. The church-going population is something like 10% and they in turn are pretty diverse. If there are odd cases where a religious individual uses a position of power to push their own prejudices, that's possible, but there's no evidence that it's the norm.
quote:
What I’m interested in here, though, is the hypocrisy of Christians (who have themselves endured persecution, and whose ideology is supposed to be compassion and tolerance) when they deny the legitimacy of atheists’ claims of persecution. How can they claim to know whether what atheists feel is real or not?
See my previous post. You look for concrete evidence of persecution, I listed some possible examples. And if it really is persecution, chances are you'll find it.
quote:
Their opinions surely cannot contest the authority of personal experience.
Yes they can. One or two people's experiences of being bullied by a jerk aren't enough to claim persecution of atheists en masse.
quote:
But they have only their opinions with which to contest the opinions of those who have the authority of personal experience.
No, there are all sorts of stats that would throw up more concrete evidence. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no objective truth just personal opinion?
quote:
And which seems more likely in the full wisdom of knowledge- the fantastic existence of God, or the terribly ordinary persecution of humans by humans?
This is ludicrously vague, and a bit silly. How does the existence or otherwise of God prove atheists are persecuted?
quote:
The Christian denial of atheist persecution is a bit like the later abusing of the formerly abused. By denying persecution they’re ironically behaving in a persecutory way
Eh? So if I disagree with you I'm persecuting you? Don't you think that's a bit precious? Anyway, you're disagreeing with me, does that mean you're persecuting me too?
quote:
"Everyone else damned well should feel what it’s like to be persecuted, because we were!" Christians have been persecuted for two millennia and it must be rather pleasant secretly to imagine others getting just a little taste of the same. Go on- admit it.
No. I think you're kind of sick for suggesting it.
quote:
Christians clearly haven’t learnt much from their own persecution. Evidently, they’re only as fallible as the rest of us humans- just a whole lot more hypocritical.
Which one's exactly? All of them, or just the ones that disagree with you? Also you began by saying you didn't think atheists were persecuted, but disadvantaged, then started talking as if they were and that this was a given. Please make up your mind. And some evidence other than personal anecdote would be nice too.
Posts: 418 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
What I’m interested in here, though, is the hypocrisy of Christians (who have themselves endured persecution, and whose ideology is supposed to be compassion and tolerance) when they deny the legitimacy of atheists’ claims of persecution. How can they claim to know whether what atheists feel is real or not? In being outside a group which says it feels persecuted, discriminated against, or disadvantaged in some way, how can they deny it?
Because - again - some of us have been atheists during periods in our lives, too?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Because - again - some of us have been atheists during periods in our lives, too?
Ah but clearly you weren't a true atheist if you have fallen away. This proves that your conversion to atheism wasn't real, and that you were never really atheist, but just thought you were.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Because - again - some of us have been atheists during periods in our lives, too?
Ah but clearly you weren't a true atheist if you have fallen away. This proves that your conversion to atheism wasn't real, and that you were never really atheist, but just thought you were.
But that doesn't matter, even if it were true. The point is that I was quite open about it - obnoxiously so, actually - and didn't experience anything I'd call "persecution," or even any sort of mild negative reaction.
Now, things could be different today. Or it could be because my "crowd" didn't care or actually approved. Or any number of reasons. The question was whether or not people who aren't atheists could understand what life is like for atheists. The answer is a simple "yes" - even if I was a closet religionist in those days. Even if I was "passing" as atheist, nobody would have known that. It was "Atheist Like Me," IOW. (Except that I wasn't passing; I was sincere.)
[ 30. July 2007, 17:53: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
Okay, lets try this once more from the top.
For persecution
In those definitions are included the synonym words “punishment” (i.e. termination from a job for being an atheist) and “harassment” (same). quote:
I would expect to see one or more of the following:
1: Unusually high instances of violence against said group.
2: Officially sanctioned and OPEN discrimination, in terms of refusing job/educational opportunities.
3: Evidence that said group had unusually high representation in the poorest classes/poorest housing etc
You forgot:
4: Punishment (your definitions provided)
5: Harassment (your definitions provided)
How do you get high instances of violence/discrimination if 85% of a group (6% of 7% of the population) are hiding their beliefs? And again, Why Are They Hiding Their Beliefs! It is a statistical fact based on the study conducted. Why are so many people hiding something so simple as a belief if they weren’t in fear of oppression/persecution/harassment/violence?
P.S. I have no idea what poorness has to do with this (Number 3) ???? quote:
I'm sure there are other categories, but you get the idea.
So when MG says:
quote:
Actually I would be interested in your preception of how the U.S. has "fallen short" in your opinion. Recent cases please.
We're talking about non-whites until about 40 years ago (maybe still in some areas), left-wingers around the McCarthyite period and probably a good way either side, and homosexuals, for most of your (and everyone elses')history. Less so now, but only less so.
Hmmm.
Obama. Black and Leftist. On his way to presidency. Go figure.
Almost every TV show on nowadays has at least one gay character. Such that it bugs the evangelicals (good!). Some have more.
Now I am not saying we don’t have room fro progress, we most certainly do, including Gay Marriage. However, large inroads are being made very rapidly.
With atheists? Not so much.
quote:
You say:
quote:
More seriously, it has often been my observation that word inflation and other hyperbole-laden things are the only things that get peoples attention in this Jerry Springer Era. One has to "burn bras" in order to get crap corrected.
No, it's insulting to those who have suffered real persecution, and it makes you sound intemperate and silly.
Pulleassse. People that have suffered “real persecution” are usually MORE sensitive to these things, not less, like you are clearly exhibiting. If that is intemperate and silly, then I am in fine company (the persecuted). quote:
Timothy, I think your points are well made. The surveys mentioned do strongly suggest that atheists suffer from a lack of respect and are obviously misunderstood, as well as sometimes suffering covert discrimination. In this they are at home with people of the wrong political persuasion, especially lefties, Muslims, RCs (in certain areas) and others, so I don't see atheists as a particularly special case.
Hmmm. Interesting. It is telling that if Lefties, Muslims, RCs are the same with regards to persecution and you are minimizing the persecution of Athiests, than you must be minimizing the persecution of lefties, Muslims, and RCs.
I would not make that mistake.
I am not okay with lefties, Muslims, RCs, or atheists being persecuted.
Your mileage must vary.
quote:
As Timothy said though:
quote:
Persecution is a strong word, though, and I'd hesitate to use it for that.
The problem of this kind of covert discrimination is therefore real, and by no means limited to atheists. How you deal with it is a problem, for which you offer no solutions. Better legal aid would be one possibility, better trade unions another (and note the word "better" here). If you don't like 'em what's your alternative?
I find this obsession with the word “persecution” rather humorous now that I think about it. Is this some holy word to Christians? Is that what we are debating? quote:
Mg went on to say:
quote:
As for authoritarian churches that expel people, yes, I am/was a member of one. I had 16 years of it stuffed down my throat. I am not only immenently qualified to judge that church, I am adequately qualified to judge Christianity in general, using you own texts if need be. As such, I will call a spade a spade and make it my "business" to call them on it as I see fit. As I have said before, don't even dare to think anyone can question my "business" when it comes to this. You (Christians) haven't got what it takes to stop me. And you won't, so drop it.
Y'see I haven't a clue what you're on about here. You seem to be objecting, rather forcefully, to people being excluded from churches. Does this mean you are suggesting churches should be regulated by the state and banned from expelling people? It seems to be what you're implying, and I think it's a bit extreme. But that's probably just me. As for you being "adequately qualified to judge Christianity", I wouldn't claim that for myself, and you'll have to forgive me if I'm sceptical about you.
LOL. Anyone that knows me here and IRL knows that the last thing on earth I advocate is government interference.
I think churches should practice what the preach. They often don’t. If they are intolerant assholes, I simply plan to be there to point it out, when I encounter it. I don’t think that is overstepping any bounds if I was a stark raving atheist or a bible thumping Baptist.
And I don’t forgive you (or anyone) your skepticism, with regards to this. The limitations you place on yourself are of no relevance to me and feel free to keep them to yourself. When you have walked a mile in my shoes on this, you may then be skeptical of my experience with religion. quote:
quote:
It is also clear that as a member of the Majority in question, you will probably be happy with whatever form of lesser-status I should point out here against atheists.
Again, you're caricaturing me in the way that you object people doing to you. I could probably exist in ECUSA, but I've argued vociferously in favour of gay bishops, so I don't think I'd be too popular with the Southern Baptists. And of course I'm not happy with the way atheism is viewed in the US. The likes of Dawkins however, and your increasingly shrill posts do the cause no good I suspect, any more than having The Trinity Broadcasting Network beamed into the UK by satellite helps to revive Christianity in the UK. It just presents an unpleasant stereotype that turns people off even more.
I don’t think it is caricature to point out what you are actually saying/doing here. See DWs last post for a better analysis of the situation than I can provide. quote:
quote:
Well that's not how America works with these issues. We do not allow threats to religious liberty, even when those liberties are for the lack of religion.
Except according to you, the US is doing precisely that. You're contradicting yourself surely? If you could try and work out what you actually do mean with a few possible solutions, I think this would all go a lot more smoothly.
Okay, here’s the clarification:
Various minority groups have had the time to adjust the American system and populace to assist them from being persecuted. Atheists have not. YET. That you had to go back 40 years to find serious issues with blacks, lefties, and gays should inform you on this. Now we have a black leftie president running for the “most powerful person in the world”. An atheist can’t do that.
So where are atheists? 1967. Enjoy the “extreme” “shrill” rhetoric. I plan to keep it up until they are in 2007 with the rest of us.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But that doesn't matter, even if it were true. The point is that I was quite open about it - obnoxiously so, actually - and didn't experience anything I'd call "persecution," or even any sort of mild negative reaction.
Did you "out" yourself atheist at work, and what kind of work was it?
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
That's what I've been maintaining all along, Mad Geo. We're late on getting started adjusting to atheists, because we had to get our hatred for all those other people out of our system first (not that it's all gone, alas). We'll probably have to hate atheists until somebody else to hate comes along. The Brits don't hate atheists so much (yet) because they're still too busy hating Pakistanis.
That's my theory, anyway.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Various minority groups have had the time to adjust the American system and populace to assist them from being persecuted. Atheists have not. YET. That you had to go back 40 years to find serious issues with blacks, lefties, and gays should inform you on this. Now we have a black leftie president running for the “most powerful person in the world”. An atheist can’t do that.
So where are atheists? 1967. Enjoy the “extreme” “shrill” rhetoric. I plan to keep it up until they are in 2007 with the rest of us.
Oh, brother. First of all Obama is not a "black leftie president"; he's a black middle-of-the-road Senator, who's 20 points behind the front-runner in the race for the nomination - in an election that won't happen for more than another year.
Second of all, there aren't any gay people running for President, and there isn't a hope of a gay person winning for another 50 years or more. Yet believe it or not, I'd never say we were in 1967 - a time when gay people were routinely arrested and got electro-shock therapy. (Did any atheists have these things happen to them in 1967, BTW? Or since? I really don't think so, but am open to correction on this point.)
[ 30. July 2007, 18:10: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
benjdm
Shipmate
# 11779
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Because - again - some of us have been atheists during periods in our lives, too?
Ah but clearly you weren't a true atheist if you have fallen away. This proves that your conversion to atheism wasn't real, and that you were never really atheist, but just thought you were.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Once Lost, Always Lost ? I'm not sure if that is official EAC Dogma...
Posts: 357 | From: Northeastern U.S. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beautiful Dreamer
Shipmate
# 10880
|
Posted
Here, atheism is seen as just another belief. Seen as a bit strange, perhaps, and a lot of atheists are flat-out nasty about it (but that is for you to police them on, they don't listen to me anymore), but here in my area atheism isn't seen as anything other than a different belief. And bashing people of different beliefs is not considered good form, so therefore bashing atheists is not considered good form. Your mileage may vary, of course. My area has a lot of transplants from Up North, so that may have something to do with it.
--------------------
More where that came from
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
Posts: 6028 | From: Outside Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But that doesn't matter, even if it were true. The point is that I was quite open about it - obnoxiously so, actually - and didn't experience anything I'd call "persecution," or even any sort of mild negative reaction.
Did you "out" yourself atheist at work, and what kind of work was it?
Yes. And it was various kinds of work: teacher, assistant teacher, work for an architectural consulting firm doing cost estimating, etc.
I thought you lived in California, anyway. There has been an atheist governor of that state, as I linked above.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Obama is a black leftie by the standards of the McArthy era (which was Woofistan's assertion). Besides, he's hardly a moderate, even by today's standards. That he's not ahead is a product of his lack of experience, not his color. The presidency is not an entry-level position. Hillaries got more experience in her pinkie toe.
We have numerous gay congresmen.
We one atheist congressmen, and he only just outed himself.
Ah yes, California. That root of all Conservatism.
[ 30. July 2007, 18:18: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beautiful Dreamer
Shipmate
# 10880
|
Posted
I was a teen when I was an atheist, but if there would be any area where an atheist would be treated badly, it would be here in the Bible Belt. I had people preach at me, which was annoying, but no one treated me badly. No one treats my atheist and agnostic friends badly, either. And they are pretty 'out' about what they believe in that if the subject ever came up, they would say what they believed (or didn't believe). Problem is, there just aren't a whole lot of situations in regular life where the subject of religion and belief really comes up. Someone might ask what church you go to, but that is about it. It just is not seen as an important question, or appropriate to talk about in all venues. It is not seen as appropriate to talk about religion of any kind (or lack thereof) in the workplace here. I have no reason to believe that my friends would be at a disadvantage being atheist here, though.
--------------------
More where that came from
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
Posts: 6028 | From: Outside Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
It just occurred to me that an atheist is going to have to get beaten up or die to become "persecuted" to the crowd assembled here.
There's something fucked up in that, somewhere.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Obama is a black leftie by the standards of the McArthy era (which was Woofistan's assertion). Besides, he's hardly a moderate, even by today's standards. That he's not ahead is a product of his lack of experience, not his color. The presidency is not an entry-level position. Hillaries got more experience in her pinkie toe.
We have numerous gay congresmen.
We one atheist congressmen, and he only just outed himself.
Ah yes, California. That root of all Conservatism.
Here's a list of atheists at Wikipedia. Most of them, as far as I can tell, were quite open about their atheism, and some are from previous centuries. There's a person listed as "the last person in England to be imprisoned for being an atheist (in 1842)," BTW. Obviously at one time there was real persecution; the question is whether or not that's still happening.
Most of these people have been open about being atheist. That is certainly not true about gay people, who were still being imprisoned as recently at 1960. There have also been explicitly atheistic governments and nations, in which the opposte problem occurred: religionists were jailed. That's never happened for gay people, either. Buddhists aren't theists; has there been widespread persecution of them in every culture as there has been of gay people?
Is your complaint mostly based in the fact that people won't vote for an atheist for political office? But even that's not true, as has been seen here. There are today open atheists in political office and there have been in the past, too; not so for gay people.
But perhaps atheists and gay people are not the best groups to compare; they're the ones I'm most familiar with personally, though.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
It just occurred to me that an atheist is going to have to get beaten up or die to become "persecuted" to the crowd assembled here.
There's something fucked up in that, somewhere.
Or perhaps you're going to have to actually make a coherent argument on this topic.
It's got to be one of the two, anyway....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
benjdm
Shipmate
# 11779
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
It just occurred to me that an atheist is going to have to get beaten up or die to become "persecuted" to the crowd assembled here.
There's something fucked up in that, somewhere.
Or be imprisoned. Persecution is a strong word. I don't see it as fucked up.
Posts: 357 | From: Northeastern U.S. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
What I’m interested in here, though, is the hypocrisy of Christians (who have themselves endured persecution, and whose ideology is supposed to be compassion and tolerance) when they deny the legitimacy of atheists’ claims of persecution. How can they claim to know whether what atheists feel is real or not? In being outside a group which says it feels persecuted, discriminated against, or disadvantaged in some way, how can they deny it?
I think it is possibly a bit unfair to speak of hypocrisy when discussing persecution with 21st century Western Christians as I very much doubt many have endured persecution. I can appreciate why Western Christians might struggle to relate to the position posited here.
Also, feeling persecuted, while a valid feeling, is not actually the same as being persecuted. Someone extremely sensitive or very defensive can feel persecuted when in fact they are not being. However, having a mob chasing you down the street hurling abuse and objects at you on a regular basis would, by any measure, be classed as persecution. If a serious case is to be made for atheists being persecuted in the US (as opposed to the UK where I just don't believe it happens) then surely some distinction needs to be made between being disadvantaged, as you put it, and being persecuted.
However, just because an atheist may be disadvantaged as opposed to persecuted does not mean that the situation should remain as it is. No-one should be disadvantaged because of their worldview (unless it involves killing Jews or torturing children and such like, obviously).
On your point about tolerance, I'm not sure the Bible does actually promote tolerance. It promotes compassion, certainly, and respect, but I don't remember any teaching on tolerance. Besides, tolerance IMO is a somewhat patronising approach. I'm sure atheists don't want to be tolerated, but accepted and 'allowed' a voice. In the UK they have one but I don't think that has anything to do with the British not yet noticing atheism because they hate Pakistanis, as suggested by Mousethief. I would suggest the situation here has more to do with the general ambivalence towards religious faith that has grown during the post-war decades. As someone else said, only around 10% of the population go to church on an anything like regular basis here. Add to that a couple of percentage points here and there for other faiths and the default position appears to be one of non-belief (more likely agnosticism but also atheism).
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
... No. I think you're kind of sick for suggesting it...
How very prescient of you- I do feel slightly nauseous.
quote:
Originally posted by MadGeo:
It just occurred to me that an atheist is going to have to get beaten up or die to become "persecuted" to the crowd assembled here.
There's something fucked up in that, somewhere.
Hmm. Like I said: all this denial is very revealing, isn't it?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Hmm. Like I said: all this denial is very revealing, isn't it?
The problem is that you haven't given anybody any evidence of persecution.
So, is there any?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
