Talk:Discrimination against atheists

"In God We Trust" and "Under God"

This article should mention the controversies about the pledge of allegiance and the national motto In God We Trust in the United States.

Egypt section

The Egypt section is nice, but hardly complete, but is inappropriately titled. The massive, and lethal discrimination against atheists (e.g. a muslim cannot be punished for killing an atheist, is part of the Egyptian legal system), and is not at all unique to Egypt, but practiced in large parts of the middle east (in principle it is applied everywhere except israel and lebanon, in practice it is applied like this in at least lybia, egypt, saudi arabia, all gulf countries, and iran).

Also Egypt does not discriminate against christian converts (although these often get "special attention"), but against all muslims who (even claim to) leave islam.

The discrimination is about killing, but not limited there : inheritance law, children, property rights, taxes ... all these sections of the egyptian law are discriminatory against both atheists and members of other religions.

It should be mentioned that the killing of atheists merely for being atheists is an accepted part of islamic law, and that the origin of these rules lies there. By contrast, neither thoraic law nor canon law specify death penalties for atheists. Perhaps the parts of the quran that mention these acts could be pointed out ? 83.182.205.60 (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got a problem with this section as it seems to be going off the topic - this article is on discrimination against atheists and as such should refer to specific examples concerning atheists. The Egypt section makes too many references to incidents concerning non-muslims and Christian converts which are not the same as atheists. The last paragraph on Mohammad Amin al-Husayni in particular seems irrelevant to this subject. I've tagged the section because of these concerns.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The topic is the discrimination of atheists. The truth is that the quran directly calls for their extermination. That atheists share the fate of other converts from islam is not relevant to its inclusion in this article, but it ought to be mentioned. Furthermore the source of this discrimination is not "egypt", because it is hardly limited to Egypt at all. It should be mentioned that the source of this discrimination against all non-muslims, which also specifically targets atheists, is an essential part of islam, and is applied, in it's islamic form, in many (semi?) islamic nations as varied as malaysia, egypt and morocco. Turkey is thinking about re-introducing it. 83.182.213.121 (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The problem I have is that this section becomes too general and makes some pretty sweeping statements about Islam and the Qu'ran. I've got no problem with the first paragraph as it refers to a specific example but after that there are some pretty contentious points, such as "massacres against non-Muslims were a very regular occurance and religiously sanctioned" - this sounds like a violation of NPOV as well. Unless someone cares to reword it with citations to make it more neutral, my position is that it should be deleted.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be deleted, as it's simply true, we just need to add references. An example could be http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E4D9123DF934A1575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 which mentions a few of them. Or this book : http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Imperialism-History-Efraim-Karsh/dp/0300106033. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.233.202 (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit, reinserting material previously deleted, disingenuously offers as its summary "see talk", whereas the discussion argues that the material is "too general" as it applies to Christian converts and other non Muslims. All previous editors bar one (an IP editor but presumably the same individual) have removed it for lack of citation, irrelevance, massacres against other faiths not being discrimination against atheists, and so on. As the material keeps re-appearing, replaced by one IP editor and seemingly against the view of the majority of editors, I am proposing to apply for page protection, subject to other editors' views. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly in favour of page protection. It's gone on for too long now that that same paragraph keeps getting inserted, in spite of all the problems other editors have had with it.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't it be Discrimination AGAINST atheists - instead of "of"? Otherwise it could mean how well atheists discriminate, or even how to discriminate (tell apart) atheists from others--JimWae 19:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I got an edit conflict after typing the text below. An amazing bit of "GMTA"--Fuhghettaboutit 19:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

By all means, change the title. I created this page in a hurry because of a decision made in the Persecution of atheists article that didn't follow through due to neglect. I support the Discrimination against atheists idea. In fact, I'm changing it right now. Starghost (talk | contribs) 21:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Malformed title?

The title doesn't ring right in the context of the subject matter. I would expect, given the current title the article, for it to be about atheists' ability to make fine distinctions between choices. "Atheists are very discriminating when it comes to furniture selection." It may technically be idiomatically correct but I think we need to be a bit more discriminating. I suggest "Discrimination toward atheists".--Fuhghettaboutit 19:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I like Jimwae's suggestion better and second "Discrimination against atheists."--Fuhghettaboutit 19:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we should get this title changed. --Walther Atkinson 03:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... --Dannyno 22:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Shh. Someone linked to the old title, and I wasn't paying attention. --Walther Atkinson 06:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

about Atheism in Sweden

The fact that the Swedish law of royal succesion legaly discriminate atheists is true, but it's in the same time two-edgeed - all non-protestants are excluded from the Swedish Throne. The law wasn't inforced to ban athesist from the swedish throne but other christians than protestants i.e catholics. The most famous example is probably Queen Kristina Vasa, who was forced to abdicate before she could be recieved in the Roman Catholic Church.

While I can't speak to this particular issue, it looks to me like most of the examples in this page aren't really cases of discrimination against atheists at all. An official state church seems more like a case of preferential treatment for one group than discrimination against others; even if you characterize it as discrimination against a group it's more like discrimination against everyone who's not a member of that particular church than discrimination against atheists. Similarly with having a priest from a particular faith deliver a sermon at public school graduation. And preferential funding for religious groups is discrimination against the non-religious, not discrimination against atheists. I know scads of atheists who are members of religious groups that don't require belief in God, like Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalism, liberal American Quakerism, or most types of Buddhism; the Church of Satan even seems to be a genuine religious group with atheism as an official tenet.

In other words, it strikes me as highly POV to characterize every arguable violation of church-state separation as "discrimination against atheists." And I say this as an irreligious atheist. Elliotreed 20:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If this article is about discrimination explicitely directed against atheists, I suggest a change of title. Also the discrimination against e.g. Charles Bradlaugh should be excluded, as those examples are also discrimination against e.g. muslims. /Benzocaine 19:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the Bradlaugh case is that it was a case of discrimination against atheists. However, the bit about the Swedish monarchy touches atheists only because atheists are not Lutherans, and it is pretty trivial anyway, so I have boldly removed that paragraph.--OinkOink 02:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not trivial that the constitution states that the state chief must be a protestant christian. As Sweden is a constitutional monarchy, the king is the official state chief. It is a clear case of discrimination. Who decides what is discrimination or not? I feel very discriminated indeed about these laws which make non-christians such as myself secondary citizens. /Benzocaine 17:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is also discriminary to atheist members of the royal family who are not eligible to become kings or queens. /Benzocaine 17:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Bush Atheism Citizenship Quote

'In the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign, Republican presidential candidate George H. W. Bush reportedly said, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." [2]'

Is there any further documentation for the Bush quote cited above (and in this article)? The only citation I can find anywhere is at robsherman.com, where he states: "The entire Chicago political press corps was there, along with members of the White House press corps and national news reporters, but no reporter thought that this anti-atheist bigotry was sufficiently newsworthy to do anything with it, other than me." This claim seems highly suspicious to me, considering that such an outrageous statement would seem certain to be documented elsewhere. If robsherman.com is the only source, I would suggest that this citation should be removed for insufficient documentation. --Atanamis 16:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

---

This was posted at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html at one time. The material is apparently no longer there but may provide some places to look:

“ The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George H.W. Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?" GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me." RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?" GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?" GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists." UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were still angry over the remarks.

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois) from forcing his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States as "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation took place:

RS: "American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?" EM: "It's bullshit." RS: "What is bullshit?" EM: "Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit." RS: "Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue." EM: "You're welcome."

After Bush's election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking him to retract his statement. On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President, replied on White House stationery that Bush substantively stood by his original statement, and wrote:

"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government.

”

I also found this source through this entry at wikiquote.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So far we have allegations from Robert I. Sherman, who claims that a horde of other reporters who were there just ignored it, and someone from the organization American Atheists. (And we're to believe that the New York Times and everyone else but the Boulder Daily Camera and Free Inquiry ignored this?) However, there is a lacuna in the bit from American Atheists. Rather than quoting the letter so we can see whether C. Borden Gray confirmed the quotation, it just says Gray says Bush "substantively stood by his original statement". And why was this removed from infidels.org if the quote did not turn out to be bogus? This is just the sort of stuff they love most to display. Without better sourcing, this should be removed.

Furthermore, this alleged quote is not shown to be relevant to the topic of discrimination against atheists. Without a demonstration of relevance to the topic, this material should be removed. --OinkOink 22:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Infidels hasnt really fully removed it from their website, you can check it here:[1]. As for relevance, I guess it's self evident that when a group is not considered a part of citizenry in a country, that's a clear example of discrimination. While that's not the case, having a chief of state affirm something like that is certainly notable. Starghost (talk | contribs) 01:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If a group of people are actually stripped of their citizenship, that goes beyond discrimination; it is persecution. Thus ethnic Eritreans in Ethiopia who have been stripped of their citizenship are persecuted. But here there is no connection given to any actual acts of discrimination or persecution. The issue is not whether this is notable in some unspecified context, but whether it is both true and germane to discrimination against atheists. Both qualifications are in doubt.

I had heard of this quote before, and I was amazed that it was so poorly sourced. The only sources are obscure and partisan, though the statement allegedly was made in front of a mob of reporters. If it is indeed true, better sources must be available.--OinkOink 04:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but infidels is pretty widely quoted around wikipedia, I dont think this particular subject really stands out among all of the others. Still though, you can never have enough good sources. I do hear this quote all the time though, so it's notable enough to be mentioned in any form, since if it was a hoax perhaps that should also be made clear. Maybe the sources are mostly partisan because indeed, in the context of mainstream press and political agenda, atheists really aren't nearly as vocal some people would expect them to be from looking at internet debates. All I can say is, like most of the article, this section needs to be developed, and I believe removing content on the soft premises of "poor" sourcing (I do believe, looking at other articles, that this statement is well sourced-enough to be in a GA, although the rest of the article isnt) wouldn't improve it's quality so much as being counter-productive. Starghost (talk | contribs) 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Widely quoted isn't the same as accurate - there are many famous films (e.g. Casablanca) that are in fact widely misquoted. (E.g. "Play it again, Sam" wasn't said.) Likewise, I would not be surprised if the same holds true for journalism. As the quote comes from a partisan source and I've yet to see context for it, either. (Was the journalist hassling the President with petty questions?) Lest anyone take this as an anti-atheist tirade, I am an atheist, albeit one who is quite cynical about organisations that claim to speak for nonbelievers or to stand up for them. Autarch (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that there are two slightly different versions of this quote, with "nor should they be regarded as patriots" vs. "nor should they be regarded as patriotic". The former is the more commonly quoted version (as by Fuhghettaboutit above) and it seems to be the original version of the quote (I found it on Usenet as far back as Jan. 1989), however the latter is the version posted on the Rob Sherman site and he is the reporter who originally reported it. So, should we use the "patriots" or the "patriotic" version of this quote? We are currently using the latter. -- HiEv 18:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I can give you a literary reference, just gives the same story, but lends more credibility to the quote : Robert I. Sherman Free Inquiry 8: 4, Fall 1988, 16. One objection to this source though- Sherman didn't use a tape recorder. He could just be fibbing, but one hopes 'journalistic integrity" still meant something back in the 80's. Microphotographer

Links with George H. W. Bush quote on atheists

http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

[*]For all practical purposes, that is only a single source, as the wikiquote article only gives Rob Sherman as a source.Ricree101 08:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The quote also appears in Onner Joanm,ed., Atheist's Bible, The, <http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061459078/The_Atheists_Bible/index.aspx>

--Ernstk (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Some more links

These links say how you can order a printed version of the original article(s):

• http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm
• http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html#bush

/Benzocaine 17:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote now deleted

George HW Bush's quote has now been deleted from the article but I don't see why - it's a pretty serious issue in the context of discrimination against atheists. It's not as if Rob Sherman was some nobody throwing around unsubstantiated allegations. He was the (invited) representative of American Atheist journal at the press corps covering GHW Bush and reported those comments in his capacity as journalist. It's pretty significant that neither Bush nor any of his spokespeople have ever denied the comments attributed to him, particularly when he was asked on several occasions by American Atheists to do so. The comments were also included in a campaign by American Atheists to Congress to end discrimination against atheists, so they were given a fair amount of publicity. Again, there was no response from Bush.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted here [2] on the grounds of WP:RS. Basically is the reference we have (Rob Sherman) reliable enough source ? Ttiotsw (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I added it back in. You have fallen for the same misunderstanding as the other editor at Separation of Church and State in the United States. That we included this information in WP does not mean that we are taking the statement to be true, it only means that this has been debated enough in the public to be notable. (I bet, Rob Sherman is pretty annoyed that he did use a tape recorder if Bush has actually said this. So the atheists are going to consider this to be true and Republicans won't.) Again, this is not an issue of wp:reliable sources. We've got enough reliable source that Bush 'is supposed to have said it. Zara1709 (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why have I fallen on this same misunderstanding ? I have no misunderstanding. I did not delete the reference but am just advising people here as to the grounds that whatever editor did delete it were. I spent 10 minutes going back over the history to get a feeling as to why it was dropped back in February and am just advising you of this. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I on my side misread your comment. It is only that I am still somehow annoyed about the controversy at Separation of Church and State in the US and I feared that I would get it all over again. So, apologies. Zara1709 (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Merge

I suggest "Discrimination against atheists" and "Persecution of atheists" be merged into one article. I recognize the difference between Persecution and Discrimination however, being that these articles compliment eachother I think a merge would be beneficial. Also, both articles are very short and are not very informative on their own. Just a thought, I do not mind completing the merge if it is approved by the community.

Do realize that this article was in fact, in almost its entirety, present in the Persecution article not long ago. The editors agreed in the discussion there splitting the articles was the best way to go for several reasons which you can find in the discussion there. 200.168.138.59 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination and persecution are separate topics and do not belong together. For example, when women in the US were not allowed to vote, they were discriminated against, but not persecuted. --OinkOink 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Lameness of this Article

Isn't the article currently appallingly lame? The examples of discrimination are the religious test to be a Swedish monarch, some inoperative religious tests fossilized in US state constitutions, and the American Boy Scouts' ban on atheists. Only the last is even worth mentioning, but it is still not very significant. The real problem here is that the article only deals with the comtemporary US and Sweden, where there is no noteworthy discrimination against atheists. A substantial article on discrimination against atheists will have to look around the world and into history. There's a lot of material around, but currently this article just sounds like whining by people who really want to feel persecuted. --OinkOink 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean discriminated ;) .I think its fairly obvious that the article is lacking. It doesnt hurt to point it out, yet I guess starting a flamewar by saying the editors are whiny people who want to be persecuted wont achieve much. Starghost (talk | contribs) 02:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The pithiest comment I can make is that a lot of the examples are pretty petty. Autarch (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I sounded that way; I'm definitely not trying to start a flamewar, but I lack diplomatic skills. I do feel this article is quite substandard and parochial. With all the countries in the world to look at for examples of discrimination against atheists, this article picks only the USA and Sweden. To anybody who thinks for a few minutes about the position of atheists in places like Pakistan or Indonesia, this sounds pretty trivial. "But they won't let me be king of Sweden! Discrimination!" --OinkOink 16:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Looks like this article needs that globalize tag or whatever. Starghost (talk | contribs) 22:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added the tag. --OinkOink 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely the fact that there is *any* discrimination in Sweden or the USA on something so trivial as religion is enough to warrant an article in the first place? Henners91 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Victorian England

I've added a stubby Victorian England section, with a mention of Charles Bradlaugh's problems in Parliament. The main Charles Bradlaugh article has more information. Obviously, there is much more to do here. The religious tests in education are an important topic. Victorian England was a watershed as the first truly modern society, and it was also a watershed in the status of atheists. I hope historically sophisticated wikipedians will see fit to expand this section. --OinkOink 00:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected your initial entry, because it was misleading. Bradlaugh asked for affirmation, because atheists had recently been able to do so in courts of law. Parliament denied this. Bradlaugh then said that in that case he would take the oath. But, since he was an outspoken atheists, he wasn't permitted to do that either. That was the origin of the struggle. --Dannyno 12:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction. --OinkOink 15:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not complaining, but it seems odd to have a Victorian example on a page otherwise filled with present day examples. Need I remind you that the British head of state is STILL legally required to be Church of England? GMPinkElephant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.175.208 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Situation in Germany

I am planning on adding a section about Germany, specifically concerning §166 StGB, a federal law prohibiting blashphemy that is "apt to cause a disturbance of the peace". Under this law, theatre-plays have been censored, and every outspoken atheist can theoretically be punished where his actions or words can (excuse the formulation) make religious nuts angry enough to get violent. Furthermore, the Federal Republic of Germany violates the constitutionally guaranteed neutrality by financing religious education, which is mandatory in Bavaria and other states unless the parents or the children themselves when they are older than 14 officially request not to have to visit religous education, in which case they have to take a course in ethics. Atheism is further discriminated in Bavaria since you can choose an advanced course in religious education for your "Abitur" (the final exams of the "Gymnasium", which -when passed- allow you to visit a university), but not in Ethics, which is only available as a basic course. Also, the church has the right to appoint and relieve of duty professors for theology at PUBLIC universities. Also, the state collects church-tax from every member of the church, and you have to officially leave the church to be exempted from paying this tax since with baptism you automatically become a member of the church. In some states you even have to pay a fee to be exempted from paying this tax. Several parties and organisations (even the largest parties nowadays, the CDU/CSU) in actions and words discriminate atheists. There are further discriminations against atheists in Germany, which I will not list now. However, I would be grateful for assistance in collecting information and structuring an addition. 84.56.110.103 15:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)MikeB

Wow, that's amazing. I never knew Germany was like that. how reprehensible. Anyway, I'd love to help, but as a stupid American I wouldnt have the first clue as to where to look for citations for german federal law. let me know how I can help otherwise though. VanTucky 17:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in everyday life it is practically impossible that anyone be persecuted according to $166. You can say whatever you want. But a few years ago someone wanted to perform a theater-play about Frank Zappa in which religion was to be lampooned by Zappa having a "revelation" where "god" appears to him as a talking toilet-seat with a halo... :-) - the churches invoked §166 and the state ruled that the play mustn't be performed because it was apt to "cause a disturbance of the peace". The things about education bug me most - I HAD to visit religious education until I reached 8th grade, and since I grew up (and still live) in bavaria, I could not choose an advanced course in Ethics for my Abitur. Furthermore, I do not see how the state has the right to use my tax-payings to fincance theology-faculties at public universities. I do not see why the sate should have the right to rule that no loud music may be played on easter in any bar, disco etc because it is the most sacred christian holiday... etc. Another very telling incident happened just last year: The BfG (something like the German part of the International League of Non-Religious and Atheists) wanted to gain public awareness for the fact that the catholic church was heavily in league with Hitler and his fascist regime by having two people dresses as Hitler and a roman catholic bishop walk the streets of Munich together on the anniversary of the day when Hitler and the Vatican signed their first treaty (Reichskonkordat). Of course the state (Bavaria) had the demonstration prohibited and arrested the two dressed up men... the flyers they wanted to give out to the people - informing them of the allegiance of Vatican with Hitler - were confiscated!... well, at least in Germany, being an atheist doesn't practically exclude you from running for a political office - oh, of course with the exception of Bavaria, that is. :) Anyway - thanks for your sympathy - it is deeply appreciated. 84.56.67.46 20:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC) MikeB

Boy Scout Part

The part about the Boy Scouts of America not allowing atheists is either out of date or completely incorrect. A large portion of my troop is atheist, including several adults. I suggest it be removed or corrected. Crimsonn Draycko 13:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Crimsonn Draycko

Do you have a citation that proves otherwise? I havent seen any statement on the Scouts site about a non-discriminatory policy when it comes to religion. VanTucky 17:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The main boy scouts article cites controversy over scouts and leaders being denied membership for being atheist or agnostic. VanTucky 17:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The official policy of BSA is that all members must profess a belief in a supreme being. [3] [4] [5] [6] You guys would do well to keep it quiet from your council. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Reasons

I think that section 3 should be deleted entirely. I have seen no reasons that justify discrimination against atheists other than those that come out of mere ignorance. For example, Anti-Christian discrimination doesn't have any kind of justification section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.87.177 (talk) 11:15, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Major reword - opening paragraph.

We had 3x citation required for quite bland statements but then I had read the Anti-Christian_discrimination article and felt that fitted too (in fact the Anti-Christian_discrimination article opening sentences would fit for any discrimination against beliefs as it is a generic list of claims. As the Anti-Christian_discrimination article didn't have citation needed tags it was thus easier to work with that as a new foundation. Ttiotsw 07:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Major reorg - Country headings.

I have reorganised the countries but added no new text. Insert new countries alphabetically. Please expand. If you plan to work on a new country entry and don't want to duplicate your efforts then please add the country name to this section and sign your name. Once the country is added by you then ideally please remove your name (or anyone else should strike out your entry from here) OK ?;

• Saudi Arabia Ttiotsw 07:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Slight change

I put the word "some" in the sentence formerly "Atheists claim that this violates secularism and therefore is discriminating against atheism" in the Sweden section, because it's fairly obvious not all atheists would hold the same viewpoint on that issue. Just thought I'd actually edit Wiki for once, xD 199.126.134.144 04:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Atheist and Agnostic Discrimination in the USA

An atheist or an agnostic can be President in the USA ? According to their legislation, the President needs to do a religious oath with is hand on the Bible. For some reason, despite 14 % of atheists and agnostics, there´s just a single atheist in the american Congress, and also a lot of religious fakes in american politics. Not even the american Catholic Church seems nowdays very worried with that.Mistico (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused over something.

I'm confused over something in this section. I read somewhere in the main "discrimination against atheist" article, where someone mentioned discriminating against them as "religious intolerance"? How can it be a religion and atheism at the same time? Isn't Atheism an ABSENCE of religion? KellyLeighC (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a matter of definition here. If you define religious persecution as persecution due to religious reasons correctly, persecution of atheists is covered by that, same for discrimination. If you were an Atheists in, say early 17th century England and said that out loudly, you definitely would get trouble! But this needs to be worked into the article. Zara1709 (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The term religous intolerance is poorly formed in the first place. It conveys the meaning that that the intolerance is religous (i.e., based on religon), but does not conclude what it is an intolerance of; as opposed to intolerance of (a) religon. (a subtle, but important, difference). Since intolerance of religion can be brought about by religous intolerance, the phenomenon being described is easily muddled. --Ernstk (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Change the United States section to 'Atheist Protection in the United States'

I don't mean to sound abrasive, bit I agree with OinkOink above on the 'lameness' of at lest this section of the article. For discrimination, it lists a 'disapproval' rating in the U.S., a (too) long description of a quote by a former president, and the funding of the BSA. The remaining section describes a long list of how atheism has been PROTECTED in America. The only discrimination in this section are the listed state constitutions, and three of those six have been overturned (protecting atheism). It also gives a list of supreme court decisions that have further protected atheism. Is there any place in the United States to find true discrimination against atheist? You know, laws fobidding atheism, denying them government support, laws that socially separate them. Remember the old 'separate but equal' laws? THAT was true discrimination. To state that the BSA discriminates would be correct for this article. Giving tax money to the BSA may be wrong, but it is a stretch to call it discrimination. So what discrimination is there; three state constitutions (valid) and the BSA along with the Pledge of Allegiance (lame)Angncon (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination doesn't have to be state enforced in order to be discrimination. A Glass-ceiling is still discrimination. Just try to get elected to public office in the United States if you are an atheist and tell me how that turns out. And if some people talked about Jewish people publicly the same way I hear people talk about atheists all the time, there would be public outcry. Maybe a list of journalists who openly ridicule atheism would be a little less lame. I for instance generally only tell people I know relatively well already that I am an atheist, because I have learned what type of prejudice one can encounter. I can't count how many times people have told me that I am going to hell or that there is something morally wrong with me--from people who know next to nothing about me except that I am an atheist. And if you don't think that the having the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance (that is what I assume you meant by "lame"), how would you feel if your children were forced by their public school teachers to recite daily "There is no god but Allah"?--66.102.196.36 (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush's Faith-Based Initiative

Though this may be more fitting for discussion on separation of church and state in the U.S., it had important implications for atheists in the United States. Bush's Faith-Based Initiative, though it failed to pass through Congress, allowed all departments under the executive branch to give finances to religious organizations, most notably taking money away from secular, science-based drug rehab centers to give to Christian rehab centers. Being churches, these centers discriminate in employment and the whole situation is iffy in constitutionality, nevermind the fact that the money has been given solely to Christian organizations, with the exception of one "inter-faith" organization, despite the fact that many others have applied. Anyways, I'm not an expert on the subject but believe it might be relevant for this page if anyone wants to take up the task of inclusion. FluxFuser (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

MySpace Controversy

The deletion of the major Atheist group from MySpace might also deserve recognition on this page. See: <http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1933> FluxFuser (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A "See also" to Atheist_and_Agnostic_Group perhaps if it could be shown that deleting the forum/site is recorded as discrimination ? Ttiotsw (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Assumption of Intention

The use of the phrase "On June 26, a Republican-dominated group of 100-150 congressmen stood outside the capital and recited the pledge - showing how much they disagreed with the decision." seems biased to me in that it suggests that the only possible goal of signaling is to show how one feels. A better version might be "and recited the pledge in opposition to the decision." I'd edit it myself but I don't edit much and I'd rather build a consensus. ChrisMR. 128.227.206.27 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

News article that might fit here

The following news article may fit in which the theme of this wikipedia article. Provided for your consideration:

Neela Banerjee (2008-04-26). "Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led to Threats" (HTML). The New York Times. Fort Riley, Kansas, United States: The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-04-27.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Is tax deduction a subsidy of religion in US??

In the USA anyone who makes a contribution to a religious organization (church, synagogue, mosque, etc) is entitled to a tax deduction. Is an equivalent deduction applicable for an organized atheistic, antireligious, or irreligious organization? If not, that is discrimination. Too Old (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as long as the charity in question is a nonprofit organization under US corporate law. AFAIK. Nonprofit status is what is used by religious organizations to get that benefit (among others). However there are certain criteria that must be upheld (which some churches skirt or outright break). For example, donations to the nontheistic Center for Inquiry are tax-deductible. [7]. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical Discrimination

Currently there's a small section on Victorian Britain shoved under International Examples, I'm not entirely convinced that the 1800s are 'international'. Should we split this into historical attitudes to atheism and current ones? There must be shedloads to talk about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billsmith453 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Does American Legislation Discriminates Atheists and Agnostics Based in the Religious Oaths for the President and at the Courthouses

I´m from Portugal, but I have this idea from what I have read. I ask to any american wikipedian to prove here if the atheists and agnostics aren´t obliged to a religious oath if they were elected for the Presidency or in the courthouses, were as we all know, they have to do a religious oath, "so help me God".81.193.189.248 (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The US constitution does not require a candidate to say "so help me God," in the Oath of office of the President of the United States but it's unlikely that any politician who did not say it would hold office long due to the widespread social disapproval. According to that same article though, other federal positions do require one to say "so help me god." I think that would make an interesting debate in the supreme court as it seems to conflict with the no religious test clause. AzureFury (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that and showing that article. Many people from other countries, like me, believed the religious oath was compulsive for the Presidency. You still didn´t showed if atheists or agnostics don´t need to do the religious oath at trials. There is a "religious" political mentality in the USA that explains why it would be very difficult for a politician to assume himself of herself as an atheist or an agnostic. That explains, according with this site [8] why most americans would rather vote for a gay (55 %) then for an atheist (36 %) for President, and there´s a single atheist or agnostic in the american Congress - I´m pretty sure there are many others "in the closet", and not even a single Governor claims to be an atheist or agnostic. That means something in a country were there is about 14 % of atheists and agnostics, and as we can see by Wikipedia there are plenty writers, scientists, intelectuals, celebrities, like everyhwere who are non religious. As everybody knows there´s also a lot of religious fakes in american politics, like those who claim to be Catholic and bless partial-birth abortion, that is a form of infanticide, like John Kerry. Nevertheless, I´m sure that it would have been almost impossible to be elected if he assumed himself as an atheist, wich many people believe he is, as many others. USA really discriminate non religious people due to the religious oaths.81.193.220.86 (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You're preachin' to the choir. Atheists are pretty much the only minority that it is still socially acceptable to discriminate against. AzureFury (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You do not have to swear to God in a U.S. court of law; they will allow an affirmation instead. However, in a practical sense, if this distinction is noticed, widespread prejudice against atheists may affect the efficacy of such testimony, so a lawyer might avoid putting someone with that objection on the stand. Marlon Brando once famously took the stand and was read the standard oath, to which he responded, "No, I do not," and began to digress on his disbelief in God, which prompted the judge to cut him off and tell him "We have another oath you can use". Technically though such an "oath" would not be an oath but an affirmation.

As for oaths of offices, many of the currently proscribed oaths do expressly contain a appeal to God, for senators, congresspeople, and even federal judges. As for the President, the Oath of office of the President of the United States is expressly stated in the Constitution, but it does not expressly include "So help me God", nor does it dictate the use of a Bible, but many of the presidents themselves have done these. (Some presidents swore in on two Bibles. I've no idea what that's meant to indicate.) Certainly this has become more true since the rise of Christian triumphalism following WWII and the Red Scare.

After the federal level, the oaths of offices of individual states are up to the states themselves. Many of the egregious states -- blatantly violating the Constitution which dictates that no test of religion may be required to take an office in the U.S. -- are listed in this article. HTH. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. It´s really fascinating to think that in Portugal, were I came from, the religious oath was abolished in 1910, after the proclamation of the republic, and was never reinstated, not even during the fascist regimen, the "New State" (1933-1974). During that time, the oath for the Presidency or at the courthouses didn´t have any reference to God, nor the single party 1933 Constitution. There was an oath for public office were the people had to swear that they weren´t communists, but it was like that : "I swear by my honour that I´m not a communist." We can see that all around Europe there are plenty non religious politicians, even in the far-right.213.13.242.234 (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"one of the most secularized countries in the world"

The article states that Sweden is "one of the most secularized countries in the world". It then goes on to explain how religion is affiliated with the government and is incorporated into law. By what standard is secularized? --142.68.161.244 (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the reference, also, it's "considered one of the most secularized countries in the world", so it's about perception. MantisEars (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a more concrete reference putting Sweden at either #1 or #2 (depending where it falls in the given range) in the list of non-religious countries. AzureFury (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

US discrimination

I think the US discrimination section is incomplete. I think this sentence should be removed:

American courts have regularly, if controversially, interpreted the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state as protecting the freedoms of non-believers, as well as prohibiting the establishment of any state religion.

The section on "under God" in the pledge of allegiance seems to contradict this. Additionally, I think we should mention what has been said in the talk page, specifically the requirement for Affirmation to testify in court. Additionally, that senators, congressmen, and judges are required to believe in God should be mentioned. Oh also, the fact that there are no openly non-religious congressmen. I'll do this tomorrow most likely if no one has any complaints. AzureFury (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a new section detailing who has to swear to god and who does not. Additionally, I slightly reworded the top paragraph so I could fit in a mention of the only openly Atheist US Congressman. Right now the section really needs citation, lolz. AzureFury (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There are at least more two famous american contemporary politicians who are non religious. Henry Kissinger is an assumed agnostic, and Jessie Ventura, like it appears in the article about him is an atheist. Interesting that Kissinger never could run for President, since he was born in Germany, and that Ventura was elected Governor of Minnesota by a third party, the Reform Party.82.154.80.140 (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Congressmen" ;). Also, as has been said, many people here suspect there are "closet" Atheists in American politics. Showing how hard it is to be elected while being openly Atheist was my point. AzureFury (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

To show how it seems illogical the almost total absence of assumed atheists and agnostics from American politics, as can be seen from the Congress, it will be interesting if someone showed how many atheists and agnostics there are in the French Congress. I'm quite sure there are plenty, probably even the majority.81.193.214.48 (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)