Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

thx for sharing your spiritual feelings

as difficult listening hour implicitly said a few posts ago, the paranoia of liberals increases by the extent to which they surround themselves with people who think like them.

as you yourself said: atheists can hide or gloss their beliefs. anyone cynical enough to run for a major public office (ie one where a person's spiritual beliefs are scrutinized) will just say they're religious and make some anemic gestures to piety. no one's losing their job or getting spit on in public for not believing in god

― cop a cute abdomen (gbx), Thursday, June 2, 2011 12:52 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

Gay people can use the closet too. It's fucked up in both cases.

lol phil do you think republicans want to defund the epa cuz of jesus???? really?

Gay people can use the closet too. It's fucked up in both cases.

wait waht

no it's not

no one's denying that atheists are a minority. it's just that....as a straight white dude atheist/agnostic/"buddhist", i think it would be grotesque to claim that my beliefs are in some way hindering my ability to succeed or w/e

matt srsly what is your stake in this?

It IS fucked up that the only way for an atheist to become a part of government is to lie about themselves.

My mom is more aggrieved by my homosexuality than my atheism, and no doubt wishes I would recant both, but no way are the two comparable!

matt you tell me something atheists aren't legally allowed to do that xians are allowed to do in america and i'll tell you something gays aren't legally allowed to do in america but straights are. let's see who runs out first.

It IS fucked up that the only way for an atheist to become a part of government is to lie about themselves.

There are plenty of local and congressional races in which religion doesn't come up at all. I don't see this as an ethical compromise.

"no one's losing their job or getting spit on in public for not believing in god"

ORLY? http://democracyforamerica.com/blog_posts/27752-texas-teacher-suspended-for-being-liberal-and-an-atheist

So we've got s sample size of two: Alfred and this dude. Text to vote!

My mom is more aggrieved by my homosexuality than my atheism, and no doubt wishes I would recant both, but no way are the two comparable!

― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, June 2, 2011 12:58 AM (17 seconds ago) Bookmark

my point was when it comes to getting elected to congress, they are totally comparable (Barney Frank being a notable exception).

like i'm honestly v sorry if ppl have been cruel to you because you're an atheist, but to suggest that it's some kind of social impediment in the larger sense is just wildly off-base

xp balls otm

no offense, Phil, but that's a blog post by a guy with an interest in the case.

like i'm honestly v sorry if ppl have been cruel to you because you're an atheist, but to suggest that it's some kind of social impediment in the larger sense is just wildly off-base
― cop a cute abdomen (gbx), Thursday, June 2, 2011 1:00 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

How could it not be a social impediment if I have to lie about it in order to be elected to Congress?

it is amazing how our prisons are overcrowded w/ young atheist men. and don't get me started on arizona.

i dont really care if atheists are discriminated against because theyre so annoying

Blame if you wish the puerility of my belief system, but winking at your would-be constituents about your faith is as innocuous as bringing your wife and children onstage to adduce your commitment to Family Values.

matt do you feel sexters are as prosecuted a minority as gays also?

yeah, i'm with gbx here. i just don't feel the boot of oppression.

if you've run in and lost a political race due to your atheism, that's one thing. if you feel oppressed on principle because lots of people supposedly wouldn't vote for an atheist presidential candidate, then i think you're making a mountain of a molehill.

personally, i feel that atheism has been slowly becoming more acceptable for over a hundred years, and that this normalizing process is basically inevitable. though i don't expect to see an open atheist running this country during my lifetime, i'm pretty confident about the long-term trends.

lol phil do you think republicans want to defund the epa cuz of jesus???? really?

Uh . . . yes? I mean I'm sorry if you're too uninformed to have heard of this guy or this guy, for example. But I hope your lolz keep you warm at night.

also atheists are more likely to be male, white, and highly educated, so id say theyre doing pretty well as is

p much

also atheists homosexuals are more likely to be male, white, and highly educated, so id say theyre doing pretty well as is

personally, i feel that atheism has been slowly becoming more acceptable for over a hundred years, and that this normalizing process is basically inevitable. though i don't expect to see an open atheist running this country during my lifetime, i'm pretty confident about the long-term trends.

Yep. It's like the acceptance of gay marriage. The point of interest isn't where "the numbers" are now: it's the trend, which is up and up.

those guys do totally set the agenda for the gop. silly old me for thinking it had something to do w/ 'smaller govt' and 'if i can make a buck from something why should i give a fuck about everyone else', it's clearly totally cuz the whole 'god gave man dominion over the earth so fuck off'. does explain why romney and pawlenty have been tussling for that all important shimkus endorsement.

it is amazing how our prisons are overcrowded w/ young atheist men. and don't get me started on arizona.

― balls, Wednesday, June 1, 2011 9:03 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

lol

those guys do totally set the agenda for the gop. silly old me for thinking it had something to do w/ 'smaller govt' and 'if i can make a buck from something why should i give a fuck about everyone else', it's clearly totally cuz the whole 'god gave man dominion over the earth so fuck off'. does explain why romney and pawlenty have been tussling for that all important shimkus endorsement.

― balls, Thursday, June 2, 2011 1:08 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

It would be easier to fight climate change if, for example, people didn't think that Global Warming was impossible because only God can change the climate.

does explain why romney and pawlenty have been tussling for that all important shimkus endorsement.

Uh, the point is that someone that would say something so mind-numbingly stupid is given the chairmanship of the committee responsible for environmental protection, whereas someone saying they don't believe in god at all is excluded from public life completely. Eyes on the prize here, folks.

Uh . . . yes? I mean I'm sorry if you're too uninformed to have heard of this guy or this guy, for example. But I hope your lolz keep you warm at night.

― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 6:04 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

that unprincipled people exist and will sometimes (often) gain political power is a given. religious people (numerically dominant in the USA) feel more comfortable electing openly religious leaders, and that, too, stands to reason.

result of the two is that sometimes the ostensibly "religious" leaders we electe will irresponsible, duplicitious assholes. this doesn't make me feel oppressed as an atheist, but it does incline me to work on behalf of principled candidates of whatever faith.

i could be wrong (and hopefully will be) but i don't see 'acceptance' of atheism accelerating nearly as quickly as gay marriage. i do agree the trend is up though.

Does this count as actual discrimination?

Here's an example that I think is particular egregious: The discrimination in favor of religious parents and against irreligious ones, or in favor of more religious parents and against less religious ones, in child custody cases, on the theory that it's in the child's "best interests" (that's the relevant legal test) to be raised with a religious education.

Mississippi is the most serious offender, though I've seen cases since 1990 in Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas; there are similar cases in 1970s Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, and New York. (I give cites below.) In 2001, for instance, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld an order giving a mother custody partly because she took the child to church more often than the father did, thus providing a better "future religious example." In 2000, it ordered a father to take the child to church each week, as a Mississippi court ordered in 2000, reasoning that "it is certainly to the best interests of [the child] to receive regular and systematic spiritual training."

This violates the Free Speech Clause: Just as government discrimination against religious viewpoints is unconstitutional, see, e.g., Rosenberger v. Rector, so government discrimination against nonreligious viewpoints is unconstitutional. It violates the Establishment Clause: It coerces religious practice, either directly by ordering a parent to take the child to church, or indirectly by threatening the parent with a diminution in legal rights if he doesn't practice religion; the Court has rightly and unanimously taken the view that legal coercion of religious practice is unconstitutional (see both the majority and the dissent in Lee v. Weisman). It endorses religion (though the prohibition on endorsement is more controversial than the prohibition on coercion). And it discriminates based on religiosity. It may also violate the Free Exercise Clause, if (as I think is the case) the "free exercise of religion" includes the freedom not to have one's rights reduced because one exercises religion solitarily rather than in church, exercises religion less actively and passionately than some others, or has no religion at all. (The freedom of speech has been understood as including the freedom to choose what not to say as well as what to say; it seems to me the same applies to free exercise of religion.)

Finally, I realize that some people think it's in a child's best interests to be raised in a religion, perhaps because it will be more likely to make the child feel deeply about the need to follow some moral code. For all I know, this might be true. But other people equally think it's in a child's best interests to be raised skeptical of all religions, because it will be more likely to make the child into a rational thinker who doesn't take factual assertions on faith, and refuses to believe such assertions (whether about the Virgin Birth or the parting of the Red Sea or the creation of the world by an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God) unless he's given solid evidence that they're true. Freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, means that the government shouldn't make custody decisions based on such assumptions -- and of course if it can make custody decisions based on anti-atheist assumptions, it can also make them (and has made them) based on antireligious assumptions.

* * *
Citations for discrimination against the irreligious or less religious: Blevins v. Bardwell, 784 So. 2d 166, 175 (Miss. 2001); Staggs v. Staggs, 2005 WL 1384525 (Miss. App.); Brekeen v. Brekeen, 880 So. 2d 280, 282 (Miss. 2004); Turner v. Turner, 824 So. 2d 652, 655-56 (Miss. App. 2002); Pacheco v. Pacheco, 770 So. 2d 1007, 1011 (Miss. App. 2000); Weigand v. Houghton, 730 So.2d 581 (Miss. 1999); Johnson v. Gray, 859 So. 2d 1006, 1014-15 (Miss. 2003); McLemore v. McLemore, 762 So. 2d 316 (Miss. 2000); Hodge v. Hodge, 188 So. 2d 240 (Miss. 1966); Johns v. Johns, 918 S.W.2d 728 (Ark. App. 1996); Ark. Sup. Ct. admin. order no. 15 (enacted 1999); Peacock v. Peacock, 903 So.2d 506, 513-14 (La. App. 2005); Pahal v. Pahal, 606 So. 2d 1359, 1362 (La. App. 1992); Ulvund v. Ulvund, 2000 WL 33407372 (Mich. App.); Mackenzie v. Cram, 1998 WL 1991050 (Mich. App.); Jimenez v. Jimenez, 1996 WL 33347958 (Mich. App.); Jonhston v. Plessel, 2004 WL 384143 (Minn. Ct. App.); In re Storlein, 386 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); McAlister v. McAlister, 747 A.2d 390, 393 (Pa. Super. 2000); Thomas v. Thomas, 739 A.2d 206, 213 (Pa. Super. 1999); Gancas v. Schultz, 683 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 1996); Scheeler v. Rudy, 2 Pa. D. & C. 3d 772, 780 (Com. Pl. 1977); Shainwald v. Shainwald, 395 S.E.2d 441, 446 (S.C. App. 1990); Hulm v. Hulm, 484 N.W.2d 303, 305 & n.* (S.D. 1992); In re Davis, 30 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000); Snider v. Grey, 688 S.W.2d 602, 611 (Tex. Ct. App. 1985); In re F.J.K., 608 S.W.2d 301 (Tex. Ct. App. 1980); In re Marriage of Moorhead, 224 N.W.2d 242, 244 (Iowa 1974); Ahlman v. Ahlman, 267 N.W.2d 521, 523 (Neb. 1978); Dean v. Dean, 232 S.E.2d 470, 471-72 (N.C. App. 1977); Robert O. v. Judy E., 90 Misc.2d 439, 442 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1977).

xp that unprincipled people exist and will sometimes (often) gain political power is a given.

Wait, wait, what exactly characterizes Shimkus and Beard as "unprincipled?" Seems to me they have some rather strongly-held principles.

homosexuals are more likely to be male, white, and highly educated, so id say theyre doing pretty well as is

― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 9:08 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this is not.... true

It would be easier to fight climate change if, for example, people didn't think that Global Warming was impossible because only God can change the climate.

― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, June 1, 2011 6:12 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

oh sure. but you're missing the forest for the trees. "only god can change the climate" is a ruse, a transparent manipulation. though it might well convince the faithful, it's not an important component of any religious culture's core beliefs. this is an argument that's being promoted not for religious, but for political and economic reasons.

As a homo and an atheist, I belong to two pitiable minorities, but neither my family nor my legislature have shunned me for the latter.

i'm the latter, not the former, and i've given up trying to convince my dad that either is true

what exactly characterizes Shimkus and Beard as "unprincipled?" Seems to me they have some rather strongly-held principles.

― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 6:20 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

i do not believe that these arguments are motivated in any way by religious faith. they reflect political affiliation to wealth, and nothing but that.

Does this count as actual discrimination?

― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 6:19 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

sure. i hope no one here is saying that discrimination against atheists flat-out doesn't exist. but as an atheist (of sorts), it's very low on my list of concerns.

custody disputes (some dating to the 1970s) vs. matthew shepard. or brisenia flores. or amadou diallo. hmm. too close to call.

dude. No one's saying that atheists are more oppressed than other groups. Quit trying to frame this argument that way.

i do not believe that these arguments are motivated in any way by religious faith. they reflect political affiliation to wealth, and nothing but that.

I call a ten-yard penalty for mindreading and a replay of the down. Those things wouldn't even place in the top ten of actually silly things that actual Christians I know really believe, and despite how convenient it would be politically, I have no reason to think that they don't seriously believe them.

i hope no one here is saying that discrimination against atheists flat-out doesn't exist.

Uhhhhhhh . . .

OK: atheists are AS oppressed as other groups. And that's wrong.

i do not believe that these arguments are motivated in any way by religious faith. they reflect political affiliation to wealth, and nothing but that.

― contenderizer, Thursday, June 2, 2011 1:22 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

A bit convenient to take this view, it seems. Surely you must concede that a lot of horrible ideas and actions are motivated mostly by religious faith?

OK: atheists are AS oppressed as other groups. And that's wrong.

― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, June 2, 2011 1:27 AM (43 seconds ago) Bookmark

No one said that either.

The question was the degree to which they are despised.

Yeah losing custody of your kids is no big whoop amirite? Any of the resident parents wanna weigh in here?

Next I'll start compiling the ones about people run out of town on a rail because they requested that there not be an "in the name of Jesus Christ we pray" at the high school commencement. But that's cool, too. They probably should've just shut up.

Oh I don't care about odium. I care about political exile.

Surely you must concede that a lot of horrible ideas and actions are motivated mostly by religious faith?

― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, June 1, 2011 6:28 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah, sure. but in american politics, faith is almost always a tool used by wealthy interests to feign identification with large groups of people whose interests are different (i.e., the not-wealthy, those whose real best interests are actually diametrically opposed).

my personal version of occam's razor insists that when it comes to questions like global warming (i.e., to what extent should corporate activity be regulated), the big loud stick may be religious principle, but the hidden carrot is always money.