Legal Discrimination Against Atheists

The founding fathers of this nation, who the Christians misrepresent and use as champions for their cause, were secularists above all. They created this nation on the idea that religious bigotry would not enter our government. It is sad to see how some of our state governments have taken that beautiful vision that the founding fathers had, and twisted it, and molded it to where now that vision is nothing more than a memory.

If you live in Texas, Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, or Tennessee and are an atheist or an agnostic, you can not hold public office. For example, Article I Section IV of the Texas constitution states:

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.

The other states I listed all have similar clauses.

So why are atheists up in arms against the religious now days? Why is it that you can't go to Barnes and Nobles without seeing one of these "new atheism" books? Well, one reason should be clear to you by now. We are discriminated against. And it's acceptable to society. However, it is not acceptable to us. I do not oppose people who adhere to inane religious myths and irrationality holding office, but systematically keeping rationality out is too much.

I hope this bothers you. Religious or not, as an American this should bother you. Please, please, please do something about it. Write to the legislators, protest, make some noise. Do it non-violently, but make some noise! Such laws should not continue unchecked.

That's bullshit! This can't possibly be for real, not any more!

It's dumb.

That's really all I've got to say about that.

If you want to be in office, go to church, it's required in almost any state, even if not legally required, it's hard for a non-believer to get elected.

You say we like you are an atheiest. I was under the impression our country was founded on freedom of religion, which inclues not believing in anything.

If you want to be in office, go to church, it's required in almost any state, even if not legally required, it's hard for a non-believer to get elected.

I doubt that they would even uphold that law anymore. However, it's the principle behind the law that matters. That law says it's alright to discriminate against atheists. It echoes Papa Bush's sentiments about atheists: if you're an atheist you're not a real citizen of this country.

It's not the legal effect of the law I'm worried about, it's the social one. It would be absolutely abhorrent if instead of atheists it was against Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists. Why should this be any different?

MJ is an atheist, at least I would assume as much. Maybe agnostic, but I'm pretty sure he's firmly against the existance of any supreme being.

MJ is an atheist, at least I would assume as much. Maybe agnostic, but I'm pretty sure he's firmly against the existance of any supreme being.

You are correct.

I doubt that they would even uphold that law anymore. However, it's the principle behind the law that matters. That law says it's alright to discriminate against atheists. It echoes Papa Bush's sentiments about atheists: if you're an atheist you're not a real citizen of this country. It's not the legal effect of the law I'm worried about, it's the social one. It would be absolutely abhorrent if instead of atheists it was against Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists. Why should this be any different?

I agree with what you're saying MJ, but it's the truth. Even if the laws DIDN'T exist, the same effect would be shown.

I agree with what you're saying MJ, but it's the truth. Even if the laws DIDN'T exist, the same effect would be shown.

That much is acceptable. That type of discrimination can only be fought by education. That takes time, and I understand that. The systematic discrimination pushed by those laws, however, is completely unacceptable and should be much easier to fight than social discrimination.

Well, MJ, that would take all the fun out of it.

I would argue that in this case, the discrimination cannot really be fought successfully.

See, most forms of discrimination can be fought through the help of "allies." The dominant group is going to hold power so long as the subordinate groups are fighting alone. For example, gay males are quite often allied with straight females, since women tend to simpathize with gay males, and they can use their "straightness" advantages to help aid the gay males in fighting the discrimination.

However, in the case of religion, the dominant group, the Christians, believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong. There are no Christians who are going to help atheists fight, and the atheists cannot fight alone due to the lack of power.

It all gets quite complicated and I think I'm having trouble explaining it accurately, but in this case it just doesn't look like there's much hope until Athiests become the majority rather than the minority.

For the sake of Argument, I'm pretty sure you are assuming something before you generally know what the hell your talking about.

I'll take a direct quote from you, and emphasize it on this situation "Have you met all Christians? No, Didn't think so, and until you have just shut the hell up and quit assuming things until you have the whole story".

Alright, I'll modify my claim. *There are not enough Christians who are going to help atheists fight*

I'll even attempt to clarify what exactly I'm saying.

If you are straight, that does not mean you are necessarily against gay people, it's just a choice you make, and you don't have to be against gay people to be straight.

If you are white, that does not necessarily mean you are against black people or indians or anything of the sort, and you don't have to be against them to be white.

As a Christian, Athiests are THE ENEMY. I won't say that NO Christians will aid Athiests, but for the most part, it's no different than aiding the enemy. Part of being Christian is thinking that Athiests are absolute evil, satan worshipers, etc.

I'm Christian and I personally believe ANYBODY CAN BELIEVE WHATEVER THEY WANT. So I suppose I fall into that 2% of Christians that are willing to accept people for being different.

Personally helping the Enemy fight is just not common sense, you aren't going to do that. That philosophy will go for basically everything in this world, Governments, Football teams, Your buddy getting jumped and you help the kids jumping him, wtf-etc;

Right, and that's my point. A Christian is not going to help an Athiest, because Athiests are the enemy. If a Christian started fighting for Athiest's rights, I do believe the church would disown them.

However, a straight person can very well help a gay person, a white person can help a black person, etc, because they are not ENEMIES, they are just different.

Well back in Slavery days they were enemies, maybe after some progression took place (like you said, Education) underwent, maybe things could change. People get too serious about religion, then again througout the history of the Human race it's been the cause of MOST wars.

Well back in Slavery days they were enemies, maybe after some progression took place (like you said, Education) underwent, maybe things could change. People get too serious about religion, then again througout the history of the Human race it's been the cause of MOST wars.

I never really got the impression that they were viewed as "enemies" so much as subhuman labor, like a tilling-horse or other beasts of burden in those days.

People get serious about religion because often it's their belief in what occurs in the eternity after this comparatively short life, I can understand why they're so serious. What I don't understand is why most won't ever be content to "live and let live", by letting others live the way they want/believe, especially when it doesn't encroach on their beliefs.

It's simple. If someone does not agree with their viewpoint, self-doubt accumulates to the point of aggressive disbelief that they could possibly think differently. Their faith is shaken by it.

It's simple. If someone does not agree with their viewpoint, self-doubt accumulates to the point of aggressive disbelief that they could possibly think differently. Their faith is shaken by it.

My post was more rhetorical than serious, but that would be a most excellent explanation, better than I probably would have done.

Bravo, sir.