LLaurieG

(Laurie) Bingo. Changing America's perception of atheists is precisely what this original post addresses. I don't think it's the most desirable way, far from it. I simply note that cause celebrés work.

wildernesse

This is the perfect opportunity to draw a line and say that you don't feel that your religious views have any bearing on your ability to do your job well or that you don't feel comfortable discussing religion at work because it is such a sensitive and private subject. If the job is in any way related to the government, the interviewers are not allowed to ask those types of questions.

As a Christian, I would not be comfortable answering those kinds of questions in an interview and would probably wonder if it was some kind of test to see if I had any backbone. It also serves as an excellent warning system regarding religion in the workplace.

I do think that there is a difference in talking about religion with co-workers you are friendly with at lunch and in making it part of your daily work life. For me this goes for personal relationships and politics as well. I'm a private person and just because I work with you doesn't make you my friend and privy to my thoughts about non-work related issues. If you become my friend, then things change but friends at work are still required to be professional.

--tibac

Toto

Asking about your religious views or your opinion of Jesus is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. (Unless you are applying to a religious institution.) If you can document it, you have a nice little complaint you can file with the EEOC.

Rusting Car Bumper

No. There were two different point so maybe I've helped confuse them.

First, as I stated above, non-believers should strive to be exemplary standards of charity and virtue. If one could easily point to non-believers doing charitable works then people would be more comfortable associating themselves or joining the ranks of non-believers. Consider the contrary. If *all* Christianity was like Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson how attractive would Christianity really be? (There are a whole host of other reasons but that's for another thread. I'm trying to be brief.)

The second point was in response to "we already do enough." I was claiming that no we don't do enough as non-believers. The was pointing to the lack of organizations as anecdotal evidence of that.

That's all.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

Point taken. You are correct that martyrdom does focus the problem. I certianly do not advocate it.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

Yes Yes but I'm going to hold your feet to the fire.

You said,
The fact is they are. In the first case I noted the woman did not and was not going to get the job. In the second case the gentlemen believes that his lack of church attendence led to a lack of upward mobility in the company seeing that many other people in higher positions attended the same church.

It's very easy to be in the position of the accepted majority (the Christian) and fail to see the trails and tribulations of the minority.

DC

Bumble Bee Tuna

I disagree that the lack of specifically atheist charities is some sort of evidence.

1. Christians tend to like to show off their religion, this is why they go out of their way to make "Christian" charities.

2. Atheists do not have a drive to show off their atheism, and tend to keep it private unless asked. They don't feel a need to glorify a non-existent God, so they don't make a strictly atheistic charity.

3. Atheists' goals in starting charities is to help people. Christians' goal is to glorify God. Which helps more people, a charity that is restricted to atheists, or a charity open to everyone?

As a result, "atheist" charities tend to just be secular, not specifically atheist. And you conveniently excluded secular charities from your question. The only reason an atheist would create an atheist only charity is to make the point that "atheists can me moral, too", but the act in itself would be immoral in that it would help less people, so you don't see it so much because atheists tend to not like being hypocrites.

-B

wildernesse

Point taken, DC, that as a Christian I may not see discrimination as clearly as those who are being discriminated against. Maybe as I become more involved in the working world, I will see evidence first-hand (although I hope not). It is probably because I prefer to work with people who value diversity of all sorts.

These people you mentioned do have recourse under the law if they are discriminated against. Maybe they should take a deep breath and sue so that others' rights aren't trampled upon.

--tibac

P.S.[I take back what I said that I have never known co-worker's religious backgrounds! This is true in the corporate places (bank and law firm) but not for an archaeological firm. I have remembered a conversation in the lab about how most of them would never be Christians because some Christians in their pasts were hateful pigs and another conversation about the nature of God and His improbable existance.]

Rusting Car Bumper

I do not believe this. I believe that they sincerely believe that their religious principles encourage them to do it. Its simply cynical to chalk it all up to "showing off."

I do not believe this either. Even if true we should show it off. Why not? "Do you want to see what's good about being an atheist? Well, here it is." I think that further it has an effect on ourselves the mroe charity one does the more the group is identified with charity. When its identified with charity then being a part of the group will be identified in part as being charitable. Its like a feedback loop. This is not a bad thing in any case.

I'm less concerned with abstract pinciples than practical effects. I have no problem have two good practical effects with a single action. Why should that be a problem? Because one has some fear of being accussed of doing it only for brownie points? That's a weak argument in my book.

I wouldn't create an "atheist" charity. I would create one that was more generally attractive to non-believers but specifically open about serving the conscientious beliefs of non-theists.

In fact I have been thinking about this alot. In fact I've been writing bits and pieces and talking to peopel for about a year and half now. I have already drawn up incorporation papers, by-laws, and a general promotion strategy. The problem is finding a dedicated core of people who share the same vision.

DC

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalChicken ]</p>

Bumble Bee Tuna

So what is this difference between showing off and showing off because your religious principles encourage you to do so? It's showing off either way. Or if that's not PC enough for you, it is glorifying their religion as they believe their religion should be glorified which means they have a reason to make religious charities. It supports my point either way.

I don't hold that giving more credit to atheism is a bad thing, just that it isn't as important to atheists as giving credit to religion is to theists, and that in the atheist's case there is even some benefit to not doing so.
We have no god to "give glory too". I don't hold that there is absolutely no reason for an atheist to create an "atheist" charity, just that there isn't nearly as much reason to do it as there is to create a Godly one.

I honestly have no idea what you're saying here. I don't contend that atheists don't make atheist charities out of a "fear of being accused of doing it for brownie points" but instead that they just don't have nearly as much reason to. They will personally get brownie points either way for starting a charity. It's a matter of whether atheism will get brownie points. And atheists aren't commanded to "Give glory to the IPU" or something so they have a lot less reason to.

This all comes into place when you realize that due to the way atheists are a minority, it is a lot harder to drum up support if your group is specifically geared toward atheists. Theists are the majority, they won't want to help an atheist charity. So as a general rule, an atheist charity will have less success than a theist charity or a secular charity. And since the atheist's main goal is probably to help people, he will tend to make his charity not geared towards atheists in order to let it help the most people, because helping people is his main goal.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation for the discrepancy between the number
of atheist charities and the number of religious charities, when coupled with the fact that atheists are a small minority.

-B