5 ms·

There's no citation needed, there's some education needed. It's a simple fact that discrimination occurs against atheists in many contexts - political, social,

by jrajav 4y ago

There's no citation needed, there's some education needed. It's a simple fact that discrimination occurs against atheists in many contexts - political, social, professional. You're setting a very odd, nonsensical definition of what discrimination is to try to make a gotcha. Maybe if you tried to speak to the degree or effect of that discrimination you might have something interesting to add to the conversation.

coldtea 4y ago
>There's no citation needed, there's some education needed. It's a simple fact that discrimination occurs against atheists in many contexts - political, social, professional. Any more than there's discrimination against religious people? (e.g. in progressive media, art circles, academia, and so on). Or just each team favoring their own, but none having systemic support, legal support, or any great power over the other? Can this still be called discrimination? Perhaps. But if we overblow some words, they lose their meaning. Atheists do face serious discrimination in some countries, for example, but in general, e.g. it's not something that will hold you back in your career in America. One might argue it can hold you back in rural Alabama, and that I'd accept. But then again, try being a card-carrying Christian in Silicon Valley and see the looks you get, and whether you'll likely to get any promotion in a liberal news organization... Sure, it might hold you back in your chances for political election. But that's democracy. People get to pick someone whose politics and beliefs they like. That's more like complaining "there's discrimination against punk or hip hop fans", because they wouldn't accept you or your views at a prog rock group.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > it's not something that will hold you back in your career in America. For tech workers in US cities? I don't think it will hold you back. But there are still wide swaths of American society were self-describing as an atheist will make people distrust you. It may even be regarded as antagonistic, like you're teeing up to pick a fight with them. I've found that self-describing as 'not religious' gets a warmer reception, even though it's the same thing.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >I've found that self-describing as 'not religious' gets a warmer reception, even though it's the same thing. I think that's because identifying as an atheist implies (i.e. statistically goes with) intolerable preaching and better-than-thou antagonistic attitude, where identifying as non-religious mostly implies "I don't care for this religion shit". Similar to identifying as a vegan vs simply not eating meat and animal products.
- trasz 4y ago
  In the West, discrimination against Christians is practically nonexistent. What does exist is opposition against hate speech and promotion of harmful behaviors, and many fundamentalists claim they should get free pass because of their religion. What does still often happen in the West is enforcing certain dogmas by law - from Catholic ideas on sexuality to abortion bans. Which shows not only there’s no discrimination against Christians, but the exact opposite is true - Christians are the privileged minority that discriminates everyone else.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    That's what those doing discrimination had historically claimed in many ocassions tho: that the other group is not actually discriminated, but that they are "rightfully curbed" (because they stir up trouble, they have the wrong views, and so on).
    - trasz 4y ago
      That’s what fundamentalists keep claiming though: that preventing them from raping children and denying people their basic human rights is religious discrimination.
- krapp 4y ago
  >Sure, it might hold you back in your chances for political election. But that's democracy. Fifty years ago, you could have said the same thing about being black, or being a woman or a Jew - the majority being able to systematically deny political power to a specific demographic is an indicator of their having greater systemic and legal power than that demographic. The fact that being an atheist prevents one from holding any real political power in the US - I submit it would be impossible for a non-Christian President to be elected, for instance - whereas the worst discrimination Christians face is funny looks (I don't think your scenario of not being promoted in a "liberal news organization" because of religion is credible, if it exists it isn't common) kind of undermines your thesis that the power balance between Christianity and atheism is essentially equal. If it were, abortion rights would still exist given than the majority of Americans support them.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >Fifty years ago, you could have said the same thing about being black, or being a woman or a Jew Yes, and if those cases were just about them not being elected because people don't like them for their beliefs it would also be fine. Especially if otherwise they had all the right to be in an election, get elected, etc - which for wowen, blacks, and even jews in many places, was not the case. As opposed, to, you know, getting beaten up, lynched or genocided. But women, jews, and blacks, faced certain different kinds of discrimination and persecution - and didn't even have the right to vote, eat in a restaurant, or even be left alone and alive. So, no, it's not really the same. This is more like not voting for communists or libertarians. >the fact that being an atheist prevents one from holding any real political power in the US - I submit it would be impossible for a non-Christian President to be elected, for instance I'd say a Christian president, having God's work and charity and all as a real priority (as opposed to token gestures and lip service to religion, of the kind US politicians make), would also see it impossible to be elected. In fact they wouldn't even make it to their party's selection for President. Ditto for a devout Catholic or Orthodox Christian (if I recall correctly, there was but one Catholic, not particularly hot on religion himself, and he was still smeared and called all kinds of names for being a Catholic, not to mention that he was also shot dead - though at least that wasn't because of his faith). On the other hand, presidents who in practice, policy, and private life, couldn't give less fucks about religion, but are nominally Christian and make some empty gestures towards it, yes, are elected all the time.

by jrajav 4y ago

coldtea 4y ago

>There's no citation needed, there's some education needed. It's a simple fact that discrimination occurs against atheists in many contexts - political, social, professional. Any more than there's discrimination against religious people? (e.g. in progressive media, art circles, academia, and so on). Or just each team favoring their own, but none having systemic support, legal support, or any great power over the other? Can this still be called discrimination? Perhaps. But if we overblow some words, they lose their meaning. Atheists do face serious discrimination in some countries, for example, but in general, e.g. it's not something that will hold you back in your career in America. One might argue it can hold you back in rural Alabama, and that I'd accept. But then again, try being a card-carrying Christian in Silicon Valley and see the looks you get, and whether you'll likely to get any promotion in a liberal news organization... Sure, it might hold you back in your chances for political election. But that's democracy. People get to pick someone whose politics and beliefs they like. That's more like complaining "there's discrimination against punk or hip hop fans", because they wouldn't accept you or your views at a prog rock group.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> it's not something that will hold you back in your career in America. For tech workers in US cities? I don't think it will hold you back. But there are still wide swaths of American society were self-describing as an atheist will make people distrust you. It may even be regarded as antagonistic, like you're teeing up to pick a fight with them. I've found that self-describing as 'not religious' gets a warmer reception, even though it's the same thing.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >I've found that self-describing as 'not religious' gets a warmer reception, even though it's the same thing. I think that's because identifying as an atheist implies (i.e. statistically goes with) intolerable preaching and better-than-thou antagonistic attitude, where identifying as non-religious mostly implies "I don't care for this religion shit". Similar to identifying as a vegan vs simply not eating meat and animal products.
trasz 4y ago
In the West, discrimination against Christians is practically nonexistent. What does exist is opposition against hate speech and promotion of harmful behaviors, and many fundamentalists claim they should get free pass because of their religion. What does still often happen in the West is enforcing certain dogmas by law - from Catholic ideas on sexuality to abortion bans. Which shows not only there’s no discrimination against Christians, but the exact opposite is true - Christians are the privileged minority that discriminates everyone else.
- coldtea 4y ago
  That's what those doing discrimination had historically claimed in many ocassions tho: that the other group is not actually discriminated, but that they are "rightfully curbed" (because they stir up trouble, they have the wrong views, and so on).
  - trasz 4y ago
    That’s what fundamentalists keep claiming though: that preventing them from raping children and denying people their basic human rights is religious discrimination.
krapp 4y ago
>Sure, it might hold you back in your chances for political election. But that's democracy. Fifty years ago, you could have said the same thing about being black, or being a woman or a Jew - the majority being able to systematically deny political power to a specific demographic is an indicator of their having greater systemic and legal power than that demographic. The fact that being an atheist prevents one from holding any real political power in the US - I submit it would be impossible for a non-Christian President to be elected, for instance - whereas the worst discrimination Christians face is funny looks (I don't think your scenario of not being promoted in a "liberal news organization" because of religion is credible, if it exists it isn't common) kind of undermines your thesis that the power balance between Christianity and atheism is essentially equal. If it were, abortion rights would still exist given than the majority of Americans support them.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >Fifty years ago, you could have said the same thing about being black, or being a woman or a Jew Yes, and if those cases were just about them not being elected because people don't like them for their beliefs it would also be fine. Especially if otherwise they had all the right to be in an election, get elected, etc - which for wowen, blacks, and even jews in many places, was not the case. As opposed, to, you know, getting beaten up, lynched or genocided. But women, jews, and blacks, faced certain different kinds of discrimination and persecution - and didn't even have the right to vote, eat in a restaurant, or even be left alone and alive. So, no, it's not really the same. This is more like not voting for communists or libertarians. >the fact that being an atheist prevents one from holding any real political power in the US - I submit it would be impossible for a non-Christian President to be elected, for instance I'd say a Christian president, having God's work and charity and all as a real priority (as opposed to token gestures and lip service to religion, of the kind US politicians make), would also see it impossible to be elected. In fact they wouldn't even make it to their party's selection for President. Ditto for a devout Catholic or Orthodox Christian (if I recall correctly, there was but one Catholic, not particularly hot on religion himself, and he was still smeared and called all kinds of names for being a Catholic, not to mention that he was also shot dead - though at least that wasn't because of his faith). On the other hand, presidents who in practice, policy, and private life, couldn't give less fucks about religion, but are nominally Christian and make some empty gestures towards it, yes, are elected all the time.