Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Really? That doesn't sound right. Why would have sensible people come to that conclusion, in the past?
Here's a recent example of a movie where the bad guy is bad cause he's an atheist (what other reason might one need)
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What was an atheist like 100 or 200 years ago?
atheist would have been an "outgrouping" term, much like the way it is used prejudicially today.
Calling someone an atheist was never, and still largely isn't, a statement about their philosophy about god, but rather a statement to try and convince others that this person is no good.
and, as a literal response, the Marquis de Sade.
Originally posted by inimalist
atheist would have been an "outgrouping" term, much like the way it is used prejudicially today.Calling someone an atheist was never, and still largely isn't, a statement about their philosophy about god, but rather a statement to try and convince others that this person is no good.
and, as a literal response, the Marquis de Sade.
So, these blue laws where not there to stop an atheist from serving the public, but were meant to stop "no good" people from serving?
That doesn't make any sense. I think that it might be more logical to think that the Christians of the past considered an atheist to be a threat to their way of life.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, these blue laws where not there to stop an atheist from serving the public, but were meant to stop "no good" people from serving?That doesn't make any sense. I think that it might be more logical to think that the Christians of the past considered an atheist to be a threat to their way of life.
ok, I see what you mean, in terms of those laws, yes, they probably saw atheists as being morally unfit to hold office
there were similar restrictions on jews and other minorities, yes? or was that just practice?
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, I see what you mean, in terms of those laws, yes, they probably saw atheists as being morally unfit to hold officethere were similar restrictions on jews and other minorities, yes? or was that just practice?
Yes, if you read back, I was talking about the past only. Of course, I don't think there should be such laws today.
What do you mean by "practice"? 😕
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, if you read back, I was talking about the past only. Of course, I don't think there should be such laws today.
no, you did make refrence to how people viewed atheists in the past, I thought you were approaching it in a different way though
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What do you mean by "practice"? 😕
discrimination can come by law or by practice. So, even when women were considered free citizens, the practice was still to not give them the same wage or hire them for important jobs
Originally posted by Digi
Agreed. Did I not say that they likely wouldn't be upheld if challenged? That was not my point.So answer me this follow-up question: in those states (I don't have the list offhand, but could easily look it up if needed), do you think an atheist could be elected to any political position if his religious beliefs were known publicly?
Your post amounts to sweeping my point under the rug and telling someone it's not there anymore. Go ahead and address the rest of my earlier post, I'd love to hear your justifications.
Well, define what you mean by "those" states. As far as I'm aware, every single state in the union has blue laws of some kind.
Perhaps you've never heard of Pete Stark, he's a California Congressman who's openly atheist. http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/08_nov_dec/Stark.html
^So you see, an atheist can be elected depending on where they're running. Some backwater county in WV? Not likely. But in Hippieville, CA? Definitely.
Oh, and I'll get back to the earlier posts once I can gather the will to sift through them. (Dame tiempo, guey.)
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, define what you mean by "those" states. As far as I'm aware, every single state in the union has blue laws of some kind.Perhaps you've never heard of Pete Stark, he's a California Congressman who's openly atheist. http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/08_nov_dec/Stark.html
^So you see, an atheist can be elected depending on where they're running. Some backwater county in WV? Not likely. But in Hippieville, CA? Definitely.
Oh, and I'll get back to the earlier posts once I can gather the will to sift through them. (Dame tiempo, guey.)
My very point was that discrimination exists to an extent that it would prevent an atheist from being elected in a lot of states. You confirmed that with your comments. And there probably doesn't exist a state where their atheism doesn't hurt them somewhat, and if they're elected it's in spite of it.
Because yes, I'm aware that atheists have been elected to various offices. Hell, Jesse Ventura is a famous example. It doesn't refute my point.
Also, you had to have read my post if you picked out that quote from the middle of it. What's this sifting back through stuff?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Religious people still sometimes come to that conclusion. It's logical, too, to them morality comes from God and believing in God , therefore someone not believing in God can not be moral and would be evil. Of course the basis of their argument is insane....Here's a recent example of a movie where the bad guy is bad cause he's an atheist (what other reason might one need)
Christ. Literally. That's disturbing. I squirmed as I laughed at it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Religious people still sometimes come to that conclusion. It's logical, too, to them morality comes from God and believing in God , therefore someone not believing in God can not be moral and would be evil. Of course the basis of their argument is insane....Here's a recent example of a movie where the bad guy is bad cause he's an atheist (what other reason might one need)
Best line: "Our rights don't matter, Christmas is what matters."
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was asking you why should these laws have not been on the book in the past. I did not ask you any question about today.
regardless of when it was, deeming an atheist unfit to hold office is, at the very least, judgemental and wrong.
even if they thought an atheist was out to no good, no actions of any sort would prove them that. I really doubt all atheists back in the day were out to get christians, or did shit to them.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Here's a recent example of a movie where the bad guy is bad cause he's an atheist (what other reason might one need)
best. movie. ever.
Never seen it. I am not an atheist and I can't say I was ever discriminated against, although I had been told that the way I lead my life is inappropriate and that God will send me to hell.
Equally, I have had some ridiculous comments from Atheists too who believe that they are by default smarter and more intelligent on the sole bases that they don't believe in God.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, it is. I'm a musician, and practice means something different to me. That is what I was laughing about.
What you mean to say is "I am a musician and therefore I only know of one definition of practice" ... which I don't think is true for most musicians anyways.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Never seen it. I am not an atheist and I can't say I was ever discriminated against, although I had been told that the way I lead my life is inappropriate and that God will send me to hell.Equally, I have had some ridiculous comments from Atheists too who believe that they are by default smarter and more intelligent on the sole bases that they don't believe in God.
What is your belief?