The last minority

Post Reply New Topic

In the United States, there is widespread disapproval of atheists. As a result, there has only been one openly Atheist member of Congress in history; Pete Stark. According to motherjones.com, 52% of Americans claim they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist for president. More recently a 2007 Gallup poll produced nearly identical results. A 2006 study at the University of Minnesota showed atheists to be the most distrusted minority among Americans. In the study, Sociologists Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerties and Douglas Hartmann conducted a survey of American public opinion on attitudes towards different groups. 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society," putting Atheists well ahead of every other group, with the next highest being Muslims (26%) and homosexuals (23%). When participants were asked whether they agreed with the statement, "I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group," Atheists again led minorities, with 48% disapproval, followed by Muslims (34%) and African-Americans (27%). Joe Foley, co-chairman for Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists, commented on the results, "I know atheists aren't studied that much as a sociological group, but I guess atheists are one of the last groups remaining that it's still socially acceptable to hate." Nevertheless, Atheists are legally protected from discrimination in the United States. They have been among the strongest advocates of the legal separation of church and state.

Many additional rights and exemptions from legal requirements are granted based on religious grounds. For example, Pennsylvania Homeschooling laws, where the State's legal requirements can be waived based on religious (but not secular) beliefs. Similar religion-based extension of rights are found in other states.

Oath of Office and Testifying in Court

It has become tradition for US presidents to end their Presidential Oath with "so help me God," though this is not required by the Constitution. The Vice President, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the members of the Cabinet, and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President are required to take an oath ending with "so help me God."

Witnesses sworn in at Court are typically asked, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?" They may opt for Affirmation over swearing to God. Those who choose to affirm are asked, "You do affirm that all the testimony you are about to give in the case now before the court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; this you do affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury?"

Rob Sherman controversy

At a Chicago press conference during the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign George H. W. Bush, at the time a Republican candidate for the presidency, is alleged to have said, “I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic,” according to Rob Sherman of the American Atheist Magazine. When asked specifically about his opinion on the separation of church and state, Bush was reported to have replied: “I support separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.” This story has been taken up by several atheist groups. However, these statements have been unverifiable. The only source for it is Rob Sherman himself.

Kevin Drum from the Washington Monthly comes to the conclusion that "apparently it's correct that no other reporters have ever corroborated the exchange" of George H. W. Bush with Bob Sherman. Sherman has pointed to an exchange between Jon Garth Murray, then President of American Atheists, and White House Counsel C Boyden Gray in 1989 over the said comments which Sherman believes corroborates his version of events. In the exchange, Gray noted that "the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government." Sherman's explanation of this is that "If [Mr Gray's] client, Mr Bush, had not made those statements to me, Mr Gray would have denied that they were said rather than trying to justify the statements. If Mr Bush wanted to distance himself from the statements, Mr. Gray could have tried to create doubt about whether Mr. Bush had made the statements".

Court cases

In the 1994 case Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Justice Souter wrote in the opinion for the Court that: "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." Everson v. Board of Education established that "neither a state nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another". This applies the Establishment Clause to the states as well as the federal government. However, several state constitutions make the protection of persons from religious discrimination conditional on their acknowledgment of the existence of a deity, making freedom of religion in those states inapplicable to atheists. These state constitutional clauses have not been tested. Civil rights cases are typically brought in federal courts, so such state provisions are mainly of symbolic importance.

In the Newdow case, after a father challenged the phrase "under God" in the United States Pledge of Allegiance, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the phrase unconstitutional. Although the decision was stayed pending the outcome of an appeal, there was the prospect that the pledge would cease to be legally usable without modification in schools in the western United States, over which the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction. This resulted in political furor, and both houses of Congress passed resolutions condemning the decision, unanimously. 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. The Supreme Court subsequently reversed the decision, ruling that Michael Newdow did not have standing to bring his case, thus disposing of the case without ruling on the constitutionality of the pledge.

Several private organizations, the most notable being the Boy Scouts of America, do not allow atheist members. However, this policy has come under fire by organizations who assert that the Boy Scouts of America do profit from taxpayer money and thus cannot be called a truly private organization, and thus must admit atheists (along with homosexuals, and others currently barred from membership). An organization called Scouting for All, founded by Eagle Scout Steven Cozza, is at the forefront of the movement to expose perceived hypocrisy on the part of the Boy Scouts of America. Cozza and others allege that when the BSA wants to discriminate, they act as a private organization; when they want money or the use of publicly-funded buildings, venues, or property, they act as a public organization.

State Constitutions

Some state constitutions in the US require a religious test as a qualification for holding public office or being a witness, though a unanimous 1961 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution override the state requirements. The states which still have religious tests on the books include:

* Arkansas' Constitution of 1874 (Article 19, Section 1) states: "Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness. No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."

* North Carolina's Constitution of 1971 (Article 6, Section states: "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God....". This was challenged and overturned by Voswinkel v. Hunt (1979).

* South Carolina's Constitution of 2006 (Article 6, Section 2) states: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

* Tennessee's Constitution/Bill of Rights (Article 9, Section 2) states: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

* Texas' Constitution: The Bill of Rights (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

* Maryland's Bill of Rights:
o Article 36: "That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."
o Article 37: "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."

* Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights (Article I, Section 4) reads "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

It may be noted that the Pennsylvania law, unlike the others, does not exclude anyone; instead, it affords protection to theists alone.

Looks like 7/50 of states have legislation against vocal atheists in office. Leaving 43/50 of states that allow it possibly. Should a Federal law be passed to override the sovereignty of states?

Thanks for reminding me how backwards we are here

And I'll bet Shitsylvania falls a sigma or two ahead of the stupidity mean as well

it was already passed. it's called the first amendment.

Heh, good comeback

note: that overriding sovereignty of the states bit also applies for the second amendment and so on....


edit: doing this because too many people focus on either the first or second amendment while opposing the other.

Woah talking about religious fanatisism. The only law we have here when it comes to religion is that you can't constantly bash religions and that theyr all equal by law. Imagine having to convert to a relgion in order to join a common organisation or work for the goverment... seems crazy.
I knew Americans were alot more religious than western Europeans, but not that it had so much influence on the goverment.

Germany

Religious freedom is constitutionally guaranteed, yet the state collects a church tax ("Kirchensteuer") from all registered members of the Protestant and Catholic Christian faiths. De-registering oneself costs up to €50, depending on the federal state (as of 2000, has increased in the meantime). Payment is not required when switching between the two "taxed" faiths. This fee is required, too, if the person who wants to leave the church doesn't have any personal income (such as a dependant), in cases of someone who is 14 (the legal age in Germany at which a person can chose his religion without the parent's consent), or in cases of someone who is unemployed. In an article in a German atheist magazine, a telephone conversation with a German civil servant about this is reported. When he was asked how the fee was compatible to the Grundgesetz (the constitution of Germany, that includes religious freedom in §4), the civil servant replied: "It's just the way that this case has not been considered by the legislator".


Egypt

Egypt introduced new identity cards in 2004 which identifies each citizen of Egypt as one of three religions: Muslim, Christian or Jewish. No other entries are possible, nor is it possible to leave the space for religion blank. If atheists are unwilling to lie about their religion, they are denied many basic human rights. Egyptian atheists cannot obtain birth certificates, death certificates, marriage or divorce certificates or passports. Without identity cards they have no access to medical treatment, cannot vote, cannot be employed, cannot do business with banks, not even to withdraw money from their own bank accounts.

This treatment is a requirement of Sharia law, which the Egyptian constitution states goes above normal law, and even above the constitution. .

The German thing is simply untrue. I moved to Germany (I am a native Belgian) last year and was surprised to see Kirchesteuer (church tax) appear on my first salary overview. I just forgot to mention at the city hall that I am atheist. A simple phone call to the Bürgeramt (city hall) and the error was corrected, so I was registered as atheist and never paid church taxes again. I did not have to pay anything to get registered as atheist.

I cannot imagine for native Germans it'd be different. I emigrated to Germany and had no costs whatsoever to officially have myself declared atheist in the database of Berlin citizens.




As for the USA... You guys know my opinion. The country is OK and I have nothing against its people whatsoever, but politically this country is one big joke. Freedom of religion and secularism? That is a farce. I am not saying some European countries don't make similar errors but still... In the US:
- atheists get discriminated
- people openly say they don't trust atheists
- several states do not allow atheists to have a political role
- in some states (Texas and surrounding ones) people would never vote for a non-christian, let alone an atheist
- the American Boy Scouts refuse entry to openly atheist persons
- the "In God we Trust" on bank notes and state motto is clearly against the law granting secularism

Secularism also means respecting every religion but also respecting those without religion. The US, like in many political things, is backwards compared to the rest of the western world. Again, I have nothing against the people, only against US politics. And I realise some European countries make similar mistakes but not to the same degree.

And oh, Turkey (where I lived) is very strict in applying secularism. Europe and the US could learn a lot from Turkey when it comes to separation of religion and law.

And the ninth, too.

WE MUST INSTANTLY IMPLEMENT A THOUGHT POLICE TO STOP SUCH THOUGHTS! ONLY DOUBLEPLUSGOOD THOUGHTS MAY BE PERMITTED! FREEDOM OF SPEECH MUST BE HALTED IF IT OFFENDS ATHEISTS!! !! !! !!



Nowhere in this country is that true. The laws on the books are at least a century old and none of them are enforceable at this time.



So what? It's a PRIVATE organization. Freedom of association (which includes NOT associating) is guaranteed in the US Constitution.



Quote specifically WHICH law "grants secularism" in the USA. Quote SPECIFICALLY which law even says "secularism" in the USA.



I know some people who live in the Phanar who would definitely argue about that.

it receives a lot of funding and benefits from the public. american tax dollars do go to the benefit of the BSA.

Are you saying we don't have backwards attitudes? y/n

Yes - if such a law is needed. Freedom of religion should be guaranteed to all citizens of the US. Do you think that states have a sovereign right to permit slavery? Do states have a sovereign right to allow local law enforcement to make searches without a warrant, or to lock people up when there is no evidence of a crime? Do you think that states can roll back the clock and deny women the right to vote? The states have an important role to play in our form of government, but the rights of the states are not as important than the rights of the people.

Last edited by monty on 27 Aug 2008, 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

When I lived in Scandinavia, there was a similar tax. The rate was not very high. Since I got married in a Lutheran Church there, baptised my daughter, and sometimes went to major holiday celebrations, I never filed the paperwork to be exempt.