Bumble Bee Tuna

pug-

It seems terribly ironic that you're accusing me of having nothing but empty rhetoric when you are pretending there isn't a fundamental difference between a description of one's religious beliefs (explicitly protected in the constitution) and a description of crimes one has committed (explicitly prohibited in our laws). When you figure out the difference, maybe you'll understand my point, but if you can't see the difference then there's really no point in furthering the discussion.

-B

gravitybow

Lord knows I make spelling errors on occasion. But, there are spelling errors and then there are words that are just plain wrong. "Antedotal" is not a word. "Anecdotal" is the word.

A handful of antidotal stories may be of benefit, however.

pug846

I see the distinction, but it isn't clear at all that you have. (see below) So, before you condescend to someone, at least think about what you are saying.

We do discriminate against members of the group of people who molest children. And while it is very proabble we, to some extent, discriminate against atheists, it’s false that they are the one group left that it is socially acceptable to discriminate against. We have laws in place that allow de facto discrimination of sex offenders that is socially acceptable. Further, the fact it is still legal in this country to discriminate against a certain group of people—homosexuals—by outlawing their conduct is fairly damning evidence that we find it, to some degree, socially acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals. (Atheists are also able to marry in every state in the union and have no problem adopting children – there doesn’t seem to be much outcry over homosexuals inability to do this and the laws aren’t being changed by popular vote.) Other fringe religious groups are probably in the same boats as atheists. (E.g., scientologists, Christian Science, pagans)

The groups who face legal discrimination that limit the activities are the groups that have the best claim to complain – I’m sorry, but I’m glad I can marry, adopt children, etc. I don’t think having those rights withheld amounts to hearing “One Nation, Under God.” And while you may find it socially acceptable that sex offenders after they have served their time can’t find housing in many states, that doesn’t change the fact that they, as a group, are discriminated against and most find it socially acceptable.

I’m not sure why it matters if you believe the description of the group is explicitly mentioned in the constitution somehow adds validity to your argument. If you only consider legal discrimination, then you’re clearly wrong. The very fact that certain groups of people who have committed certain acts are defined as illegal is direct evidence that we find the behavior socially acceptable to discriminate against. Groups that don’t face any legal discrimination don’t have nearly as much standing to complain that they are discriminated against. (more in my next post)(And as mentioned above, even in this group, it isn’t clear that atheists are more discriminated against than fringe religious groups.)

So either your statement is false, or it’s so malleable and devoid of content to say nothing at all.

pug846

Javaman said:

I’m going to repeat what I said to the previous poster, but are homosexuals law-abiding? Replace “homosexual” with “Jew” and the result would probably be the same most times. Further, if you are going to limit it to what you call “law-abiding” and claim that doesn’t cover homosexuals, do you believe that fringe religious groups fair any better? What about Iraqis right about now in America? What about members of the KKK who are often law abiding? Racists? Shall I continue?

Further, something like “One Nation, Under God” is just as much evidence of socially acceptable discrimination against polytheists as it is against atheists. So, if you do accept that as evidence of discrimination—I’m not sure I would—then you are admitting that polytheists are also discriminated against. Therefore, the claim that atheists are the last group it is socially acceptable to discriminate against is false.

So while the antidotal () stories might be helpful, they would only prove some people don’t really care about negative statements made about atheists – you can’t ignore the same evidence for other groups.

Javaman

pug846, I can see the point you're making as regards atheists not being the last group it's OK to discriminate against. That doesn't change the fact that you only have to glance at the opinion page of a local newspaper (yes, this is still the thing that gets to me the most) and see awful things said about atheists. I can't remember the last rant against gay people I read but they are far outnumbered by the letters telling me to leave my country since I don't believe in God.

I'll re-read this thread but I'm not sure anyone has actually claimed we are the last group, just provided instances where discrimination exists.

Is it socially accepable to discriminate against:
African Americans?
Jews?
Women?
I would say that it is not. But atheism isn't so lucky. I would also like to add that the U.S. is also not tolerant of any minority belief system. Does anyone recall media's take on the Raelians (Sp?)? I found their belief system at least as believable as the other mainstream ones and yet is was fine to openly mock them.

{edited to add}
...and I see your point about folks not caring about poor treatment of atheists. Maybe that's nearly as bad, though.

pug846

Javaman said:

The OP said:

It’s false, and at least you and I agree it is.

pug846

Javaman said:

I agree that the U.S. is, for the most part, not particularly kind to any sort of minority belief system. And while I think it is generally socially acceptable to take shots at atheists, I don’t think we have it particularly bad. Further, there are groups, such as homosexuals, who have a much rougher go of it because of legally sanctioned discrimination.

It’s also worth noting that it seems to be more and more common for people to mock the extremely religious. It’s common on TV now to show people who are extremely religious as nut cases. In the US, I would be willing to bet you will see more negative portrayals of fundamentalism than see anything on atheism at all.

Shake

...unless it's a hockey jersey! There's a guy in the NHL whose last name is Satan (pronounced Sha-tan, IIRC)!