Do atheists face discrimination?

[7StringedBeast]

4.  Yes they absolutely are!  I can run for public office if I'm Christian.  I can't run for public office if I'm an atheist.  Obviously one person has more rights than the other.

The 35 year old thing doesn't matter, because once you become 35 if you are Christian you can run, and if you are an atheist you can't.  That is not right at all.

Saying an atheist can't run is the same thing as saying a Muslim can't run.  They are both a belief regarding the spiritual world.  An Atheist can still have all the same moral codes as a Christian but just not believe in God.

[GuineaPig]

Wow.

[bosk1]

If you look at running for public office as a "right" then we really don't have a common foundation to be able to have this discussion because we obviously don't have the same understanding of what is and isn't a "right."  Running for a public office is not a "right."  If you think it is, we really can't be on the same page with this discussion at all.

The 35 year old thing doesn't matter, because once you become 35 if you are Christian you can run, and if you are an atheist you can't.  That is not right at all.

Hence why I also brought up the American-born requirement.  

Saying an atheist can't run is the same thing as saying a Muslim can't run.  They are both a belief regarding the spiritual world.  An Atheist can still have all the same moral codes as a Christian but just not believe in God.

No, actually it isn't.  For one thing, a Muslim who doesn't deny the existence of God is likely to understand the concept that there are eternal consequences for his actions and decisions both as a leader and a person, whereas the atheist, by definition, does not believe that to be the case.

[slycordinator]

4.  Yes they absolutely are!  I can run for public office if I'm Christian.  I can't run for public office if I'm an atheist.  Obviously one person has more rights than the other.

You still have the right to run for office. It's just that there's no right to you being elected.

[GuineaPig]

Wow.

[7StringedBeast]

Bill Clinton, George Bush, Obama, Hitler, Eliot Spitzer, Weiner, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon,

All some sort of Christian or Catholic.  All have done some pretty fucked up shit or morally objectionable things in their time leading.  Why do you think a person of faith is a better person to run?  These people obviously didn't see many eternal consequences for their actions that stopped them from doing wrong.

The idea that a person with a faith in God is somehow more morally equipped to hold public office is outrageous.  I mean think about all the priests that molest boys.  I'll take a good Atheist over anyone of those scumbags any day.

My point is, faith has nothing to do with how good of a leader someone can be (that's mainly why Hitler is thrown in with the first list of names)

And yes, I suppose running for office is a privilege, however just cause you are an atheist we take that privilege away from you.  That's offensive because no matter how right that person might be to solve some huge problems, oh wait they can't because they don't believe in something that has never been proven to exist.

Separation of Church and State.

[ClairvoyantCat]

The 35 year old thing doesn't matter, because once you become 35 if you are Christian you can run, and if you are an atheist you can't.  That is not right at all.

Hence why I also brought up the American-born requirement.  

Being an American-born is a condition directly related to the job.  Atheism is a belief, and there is no fundamental correlation between any political office and one's personal beliefs.  

[7StringedBeast]

4.  Yes they absolutely are!  I can run for public office if I'm Christian.  I can't run for public office if I'm an atheist.  Obviously one person has more rights than the other.

You still have the right to run for office. It's just that there's no right to you being elected.

No one is saying people have a right to get elected.  Have you read the discussion, because this post seems to me like you haven't read all the posts.

[Sigz]

What exactly is the rationale for legislating a 'must believe in god' requirement for public office? I mean, if you don't want to vote for an atheist, fine it's your right to do so. But how does it preclude someone from even being eligible for office?

[bosk1]

Wow.

Do you actually have anything on topic to say?

Stuff about bad people.

I don't really find that argument relevant at all.  You can easily find plenty of bad examples in any classification you want to use, whehther the classification is legitimate or not.  You can also choose those same bad examples and say "I would rather have someone who is not American-born than these American-born scumbags any day."  Whether they are American-born has little (if any) relation to whether they are scumbags.  I see what you are saying, but it is a straw man argument.  Yes, there are plenty of morally upstanding atheists who have good decision-making skills and a lot of other solid tools in their arsenal that would well-equip them for the job, and there are plenty of unqualified, immoral idiots who profess a belief in God.  Again, that's going to be the case no matter what criteria you use.

Separation of Church and State.

Silly idea, really.  

The 35 year old thing doesn't matter, because once you become 35 if you are Christian you can run, and if you are an atheist you can't.  That is not right at all.

Hence why I also brought up the American-born requirement.  

Being an American-born is a condition directly related to the job.  Atheism is a belief, and there is no fundamental correlation between any political office and one's personal beliefs.  

I feel there is a fundamental correlation, actually, as I partially explained in my post above where I was hypothetically discussion a Muslim running for office.

[7StringedBeast]

So why not let atheists run for office?  What the heck?

Yes, there are plenty of morally upstanding atheists who have good decision-making skills and a lot of other solid tools in their arsenal that would well-equip them for the job, and there are plenty of unqualified, immoral idiots who profess a belief in God.  Again, that's going to be the case no matter what criteria you use.

Why discriminate against either of these people from running?  They should both be allowed to run and let the people vote.  That is what this country is all about.  The whole believing in God argument is tired and worn out.  As I have proved and you agreed that we have people who believe in God doing bad things.  So that whole "they believe in a power above and eternal consequences" argument doesn't even matter.  All I care about is what that politician does on earth!  It's the only thing that effects me.  Who cares about their afterlife?  How is that going to bring about quality change for the country or state or town?

[ClairvoyantCat]

I feel there is a fundamental correlation, actually, as I partially explained in my post above where I was hypothetically discussion a Muslim running for office.

I understood your point with the hypothetical Muslim, but that seems more like a personal opinion on the aptitude of a person to perform his job based on his religion, and in that case wouldn't you think that kind of relation should be held to personal opinion instead of government regulation?  I don't think a rule should really intervene with someone's right to hold office unless there is a fundamental reason why this person would be less able to run the office, and a personal opinion that a theistic candidate would run the job better is not fundamental. 

Summed up, my point is that you can think that a muslim, atheist, christian, jew, or any other kind of person is less apt to run for office because of x.  That's personal, and government cannot step in there without discriminating. 

[ehra]

No, actually it isn't.  For one thing, a Muslim who doesn't deny the existence of God is likely to understand the concept that there are eternal consequences for his actions and decisions both as a leader and a person, whereas the atheist, by definition, does not believe that to be the case.

Correction: An atheist doesn't believe that they themselves will suffer eternal consequences from their own actions after their death. Extrapolating from that and implying that an atheist "does not believe" that their decisions as a leader or person would have lasting effects even after their death on the people they impact is intellectual laziness at its finest.

[bosk1]

What exactly is the rationale for legislating a 'must believe in god' requirement for public office? I mean, if you don't want to vote for an atheist, fine it's your right to do so. But how does it preclude someone from even being eligible for office?

There are a lot of quotations floating around from a lot of the framers of the U.S. Constitution and other founding fathers about how the system of government they were creating can only function properly when both those in charge and the electorate as a whole have a moral foundation and are guided in their actions and their judgments by a belief in the Creator.  As a lot of state Constitutions were being framed, you see a lot of similar language used, so I think probably that has a lot to do with how these provisions came to exist (and if I recall, most if not all of them are in their states' respective constitutions vs. merely being legislated).  

7StringedBeast, I believe this answers the question in your last post as well.

[GuineaPig]

I really think the Founding Fathers should've written the Constitution so that many of them couldn't run for office.  Didn't they know that America is a Christian nation?

[bosk1]

I feel there is a fundamental correlation, actually, as I partially explained in my post above where I was hypothetically discussion a Muslim running for office.

I understood your point with the hypothetical Muslim, but that seems more like a personal opinion on the aptitude of a person to perform his job based on his religion, and in that case wouldn't you think that kind of relation should be held to personal opinion instead of government regulation?  I don't think a rule should really intervene with someone's right to hold office unless there is a fundamental reason why this person would be less able to run the office, and a personal opinion that a theistic candidate would run the job better is not fundamental.  

Summed up, my point is that you can think that a muslim, atheist, christian, jew, or any other kind of person is less apt to run for office because of x.  That's personal, and government cannot step in there without discriminating.  

Yes, it is a personal opinion.  That's what I said in my initial post (which, without going back and looking up, I believe said something along the lines of, "which I personally don't think is a bad idea," or something along those lines).  Not sure why people seem to get so wound up over a personal opinion--especially one that is extremely unlikely of ever playing out successfully in the political arena.

But as to the last half of your last sentence ("government cannot step in there without discriminating"), this is where we fundamentally disagree.  "Discrimination" is far too broad a word that, nowadays, has far too much of an emotional charge to it.  Not all discrimnation is bad, and not all discrimination is improper for either the government or any private citizen to engage in.

An atheist doesn't believe that they themselves will suffer eternal consequences from their own actions after their death. Extrapolating from that and implying that an atheist "does not believe" that their decisions as a leader or person would have lasting effects even after their death on the people they impact is intellectual laziness at its finest.

Agreed.  And I'm glad my post did not say that, because I would hate to be rightly lumped in with the intellectually lazy that you refer to.

[eric42434224]

Well I guess all this answers the OP....Atheists can and do face discrimination.

[Bombardana]

This thread has actually made me more prone to saying Atheists do face discrimination. I've read in it a lot of ignorance and lies about supposed Atheist amorality and consequenceless behaviour. Bigotry, plain and simple.

[ehra]

An atheist doesn't believe that they themselves will suffer eternal consequences from their own actions after their death. Extrapolating from that and implying that an atheist "does not believe" that their decisions as a leader or person would have lasting effects even after their death on the people they impact is intellectual laziness at its finest.

Agreed.  And I'm glad my post did not say that, because I would hate to be rightly lumped in with the intellectually lazy that you refer to.

Then do you care to explain what you were saying? Because I fail to see how your comment about atheists not believing their actions have eternal consequences can be taken any other way; seeing as how where they personally stand as far as the afterlife is concerned has no bearing on their ability to lead. Or is this going to be similar to your "No I don't think the laws are a good thing, I just think they're not bad ideas" comment earlier?

[bosk1]

I've read in it a lot of ignorance and lies about supposed Atheist amorality and consequenceless behaviour.

Really?  Where?  I don't recall any post in the thread accusing all atheists of being amoral.

Bigotry, plain and simple.

Bombardana, you will get one warning and one warning only:  namecalling like this is not allowed under any circumstance.

[bosk1]

An atheist doesn't believe that they themselves will suffer eternal consequences from their own actions after their death. Extrapolating from that and implying that an atheist "does not believe" that their decisions as a leader or person would have lasting effects even after their death on the people they impact is intellectual laziness at its finest.

Agreed.  And I'm glad my post did not say that, because I would hate to be rightly lumped in with the intellectually lazy that you refer to.

Then do you care to explain what you were saying? Because I fail to see how your comment about atheists not believing their actions have eternal consequences can be taken any other way; seeing as how where they personally stand as far as the afterlife is concerned has no bearing on their ability to lead. Or is this going to be similar to your "No I don't think the laws are a good thing, I just think they're not bad ideas" comment earlier?

Sure.  Whether a decision has an effect on someone else after you are gone is a great motivator.  But it is not the same thing as whether a decision has eternal consequences.  The latter is a much larger issue that subsumes the former.  But they aren't the same thing.

[eric42434224]

lies about supposed Atheist amorality and consequenceless behaviour.

Really?  Where?  I don't recall any post in the thread accusing all atheists of being amoral.
.

You are placing them in a different class.  You are stating that, as a whole, Atheists are more prone to amoral behavoir because they do not believe in the same afterlife consequenses.
That arguement, if used to exclude someone from running for office, is discrimination.

[eric42434224]

An atheist doesn't believe that they themselves will suffer eternal consequences from their own actions after their death. Extrapolating from that and implying that an atheist "does not believe" that their decisions as a leader or person would have lasting effects even after their death on the people they impact is intellectual laziness at its finest.

Agreed.  And I'm glad my post did not say that, because I would hate to be rightly lumped in with the intellectually lazy that you refer to.

Then do you care to explain what you were saying? Because I fail to see how your comment about atheists not believing their actions have eternal consequences can be taken any other way; seeing as how where they personally stand as far as the afterlife is concerned has no bearing on their ability to lead. Or is this going to be similar to your "No I don't think the laws are a good thing, I just think they're not bad ideas" comment earlier?

Sure.  Whether a decision has an effect on someone else after you are gone is a great motivator.  But it is not the same thing as whether a decision has eternal consequences.  The latter is a much larger issue that subsumes the former.  But they aren't the same thing.

Then dont VOTE for them if that generalization is your opinion.  Excluding them from running for that office is discrimination.

[skydivingninja]

I've read in it a lot of ignorance and lies about supposed Atheist amorality and consequenceless behaviour.

Really?  Where?  I don't recall any post in the thread accusing all atheists of being amoral.

Be serious Bosk.  You don't see how someone could extrapolate that from your argument that your opinion is nothing like thinking that Muslims should be denied that same right?  Yes, you're not accusing all atheists of being immoral, just like you're not saying all Christians or religious people are moral, but your earlier post suggested that you would rather a religious person hold office because of their belief in eternal consequences.  Yes, its a personal opinion and you're entitled to it, but I think people are getting offended because you're implying one group of people are less moral on the whole than another, and you think its a good idea to take away a right like running for public office. 

Again, if you would rather vote for a religious person over an atheist for those reasons, I think people are more or less fine with that.  Advocating laws that would take rights away from atheists is where people start to get perturbed. 

Also, what eric just ninja'd above me is an excellent post.

[ehra]

An atheist doesn't believe that they themselves will suffer eternal consequences from their own actions after their death. Extrapolating from that and implying that an atheist "does not believe" that their decisions as a leader or person would have lasting effects even after their death on the people they impact is intellectual laziness at its finest.

Agreed.  And I'm glad my post did not say that, because I would hate to be rightly lumped in with the intellectually lazy that you refer to.

Then do you care to explain what you were saying? Because I fail to see how your comment about atheists not believing their actions have eternal consequences can be taken any other way; seeing as how where they personally stand as far as the afterlife is concerned has no bearing on their ability to lead. Or is this going to be similar to your "No I don't think the laws are a good thing, I just think they're not bad ideas" comment earlier?

Sure.  Whether a decision has an effect on someone else after you are gone is a great motivator.  But it is not the same thing as whether a decision has eternal consequences.  The latter is a much larger issue that subsumes the former.  But they aren't the same thing.

Again, what does their own personal standing on the afterlife have to do with their ability to lead? Unless they try to ban religion, their decisions won't have "eternal consequences" on anyone but themselves

[bosk1]

discrimination

"Discrimination" is far too broad a word that, nowadays, has far too much of an emotional charge to it.  Not all discrimnation is bad, and not all discrimination is improper for either the government or any private citizen to engage in.

[Bombardana]

I've read in it a lot of ignorance and lies about supposed Atheist amorality and consequenceless behaviour.

Really?  Where?  I don't recall any post in the thread accusing all atheists of being amoral.

I never said any posts in this thread accused all atheists of being amoral. But I'd point at posts like yours that question the moral grounding of Atheists, that fundamentally a belief in God is necessary for guiding actions and judgements. (Reply #153)

Bigotry, plain and simple.

Bombardana, you will get one warning and one warning only:  namecalling like this is not allowed under any circumstance.

Okay sorry, I didn't know that was considered namecalling. I still mean that definition of the word, but not if the word itself has an offensive connotation attached to it.

[eric42434224]

discrimination

"Discrimination" is far too broad a word that, nowadays, has far too much of an emotional charge to it.  Not all discrimnation is bad, and not all discrimination is improper for either the government or any private citizen to engage in.

Agreed.

But a law denying an eligible citizen his right to run for public office due to his spiritual/religious beliefs or lack-of, IS discrimination.

[skydivingninja]

discrimination

"Discrimination" is far too broad a word that, nowadays, has far too much of an emotional charge to it.  Not all discrimnation is bad, and not all discrimination is improper for either the government or any private citizen to engage in.

A lot of people would agree with the "not all discrimination is bad" part.  We discriminate against felons for a good reason.  I think our fundamental misunderstanding between you and everyone else here is what kind of discrimination is bad or improper.  You apparently think a law discriminating against atheists would not be improper.  Everyone else strongly disagrees.

[eric42434224]

I've read in it a lot of ignorance and lies about supposed Atheist amorality and consequenceless behaviour.

Really?  Where?  I don't recall any post in the thread accusing all atheists of being amoral.

I never said any posts in this thread accused all atheists of being amoral. But I'd point at posts like yours that question the moral grounding of Atheists, that fundamentally a belief in God is necessary for guiding actions and judgements. (Reply #153)

Bigotry, plain and simple.

Bombardana, you will get one warning and one warning only:  namecalling like this is not allowed under any circumstance.

Okay sorry, I didn't know that was considered namecalling. I still mean that definition of the word, but not if the word itself has an offensive connotation attached to it.

You absolutely did not call anyone a name.  You said some of the views in this thread were bigotry, which can be a synonym for discrimination.  You didnt use the term in a name-calling way to any person.

[skydivingninja]

Quick question for Bosk/Will/Yesh: would "intolerance" be a more acceptable word to use than "bigotry?"

[William Wallace]

Most importantly, the study didn't look at mistreatment of atheists, but how people view them. And if they're not disenfranchised or denied any other legal rights, I don't think there's much to complain about. And really, why do people's opinions matter so much? If a person is happy with his or her life and atheistic worldview, what does it matter if Pastor Joe Bob Jones of First Baptist church in Dyess, Arkansas doesn't like them?  

I don't think this sort of argument would be used for visible minorities.  I don't really mind what Pastor Joe says, because I'm not discriminated against in my day-to-day life.  If I was, I'm sure I'd feel differently.  

The way atheists are discriminated against in their lives is different than visible minorities, simply because one's religious affiliations are not as evident as the colour of one's skin.  I guess it is more analogous to homosexuals.  But in some ways, the discrimination can be more hurtful for some because instead of random John Q. Public being hateful towards you, it's your family or people you know well.  I know a number of people who have very strained relationships with the rest of their family solely because they are an atheist.

Judgmental douche bags, including family members, can't be forced to accept the culture, lifestyle and religious beliefs of others.  That's just a part of life and applies to everybody - black, white, homosexual, atheist, it doesn't matter. If that dislike escalates to mistreatment, I'll be right there with you to condemn it. Otherwise, our skeptical friends need to get over themselves.

Your argument to me seems to boil down to saying there's no real discrimination or problem, so long as it's not done by the government. I think governmental discrimination is a horrible problem, but I think it's wrong to say that this means there's not an issue within society that we need to address as a society. Hate crimes aren't pereptuated by teh government, but they're still a very real problem for certain minorities, and in certain locations.

It is being done by the government as pointed out in my post before. So his argument is further bunk.

But the laws you pointed to are not enforced, according to your article. Still, they are certainly unconstitutional by any standard and should not exist.

Hate crimes aren't pereptuated by teh government, but they're still a very real problem for certain minorities, and in certain locations.

Again, committing a hate crime actually causes somebody harm. Not being liked is an entirely different issue.

[bosk1]

Yes, you're not accusing all atheists of being immoral, just like you're not saying all Christians or religious people are moral, but your earlier post suggested that you would rather a religious person hold office because of their belief in eternal consequences.  

The part I bolded is the key.  I am NOT accusing all atheists of being immoral or amoral.  Some are.  Some aren't.  By definition, atheism permits any of a broad range of moral positions.  You can be extremely moral, extremely immoral, extremely amoral, or anywhere in between without in any way being inconsistent with being an atheist.  And by definition, belief in God does not allow for immorality or amorality.  Yes, people can lie about that or act in a way that is completely inconsistent with that (examples were given above of people who perhaps professed a belief in a god, but acted very poorly), but that is the case with any job qualification (or political qualification), and the fact that someone can misprepresent themselves or act inconsistently does not in and of itself negate the validity of the qualification.

Advocating laws that would take rights away from atheists is where people start to get perturbed.

Two things:
1.  As I said above, I find the belief that running for political office is somehow a "right" and the implications of that belief to be FAR more disturbing than anything else posted by anyone in this thread.  It isn't a right.  
2.  Honestly, I'm not sure why anyone would get so worked up as to be "perturbed" by someone else's political views on a music Internet forum.  When it comes right down to it, who cares what I personally believe when it comes to politics?  Why should it matter to anyone else who posts on this forum? 

[Bombardana]

And by definition, belief in God does not allow for immorality or amorality.

"Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

That allows for as much difference in morality as Atheism does.

[ehra]

And by definition, belief in God does not allow for immorality or amorality.

So Cain didn't believe in God?