Why Aren't Atheists A Protected Group Like Muslims?

This is accurate. Above all a politician must be Christian and imply that prayer and communing with God are part of their policy making process. America was founded by conservative religious people who felt the Europe of the 17th century was too sinful. That attitude still shows in us today. Up until a few decades ago it was considered impolite to mix politics and religion. But the Republicans figured out they could tap into the evangelical vote. These people were very angry because of the cultural changes of the 1960's. All the "free love" etc.

Now they go around denying global warming and all sort of other ridiculous things because essentially these people believe that man has no ability to affect the Earth. So if anything bad happens God must want it to happen and this means the rapture is coming so they will be taken away to heaven.

I find the statistics posted by the OP hard to believe though. Considering all the hate Obama has revived I doubt that many people are comfortable with a black man as president. They find every other reason in the book to dislike him but to many of them it's simply the ****** is in charge.

I am more agnostic then Atheist. But I think the protection Atheists desire most would be for the separation of church and state to be honored. More and more that is not the case in America. The best example I can think of is every Christmas these people getting upset that nativity scenes are not allowed on federal property. This means they are being discriminated against. No, that would be if you were forbidden from putting that on your own property which they all do.

You are free to practice whatever religion you wish that is freedom. But you don't have the right to interfere with other people by forcing religious policy into law. That is the same as Sharia law and the Evangelicals hate that. Science and personal choice are the virtues in an Atheist world not oppressing people with different views then you have.

 

You are so right, Charles Colson and Jerry Falwall went to Nixon with the idea of inviting Evangelical Christians to the Republican Party, to tkae it over. Henry Kissinger added the "Silent Majority" them Falwell added the "Moral Majority" then I signed up with the Democrats!

 

There's a strange kind of contradiction I think in the fact that in the US constitution freedom of religion is guaranteed, yet in America you have this situation where politics and religion seem to go hand in hand, whilst in Britain where we have actually got a state religion with the Queen as head, religion really plays a very insignificant role in politics.

We too had our 'swing to the right' back in the 80's during the Thatcher/Reagan era, but here it was purely secular and economic. And now, we too have our climate change deniers, but they don't present it in any kind of religious context. For the right here, it's all about money and damn the consequences.

 

I think that's the same in the US for a large part. Most people in charge put up a christian facade but I doubt they sincerely and fully believe in it. It's mostly the gullible people that eat up and walk away with the religious context of the politicians (both right AND left, albeit the republican party takes it to extremes much more often).

 

It seems actually to work in reverse in the UK sometimes. Blair for example delayed converting to Catholicism until he was no longer in office. Maybe he thought it would put people off.

I agree that posing as religious is a tactic used to manipulate voters in the US.

 

Exactly, Christians are a huge voting demographic in the Us and politicians are merely pandering to them for votes and support.

In terms of climate change especially the Christian right is a helpful demographic to have behind you because they don't generally make it a point to understand science.

 

And in the Bible you find that God put everything, animals, plants, and the land for man to use and do whatever with. So, in rural Christian America; people see nothing wrong with taking from the land and put their refuse back in it.

 

why is ANYONE more or less "protected" then anyone else? why is any group singled out to be scapegoated?
it has to do with the mechanics of politics.
divide people into groups and set them at odds with each other, and they'll be too busy hating each other to be able to get together and stop you from screwing them over.
its called devide and concor, and that's what so called 'conservatism' wants to 'conserve'.

 

Not constantly being profiled may be a good reason why others do not feel quite the same pressure that Muslims do.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html

Copy and paste into browser.

 

Direct Article like above: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html

 

applause.im not scared of shit but assholes who join isis should not be ignored. There is a balance. I actually have a few good friends that are practicing muslim. Look its liberal guilt. Liberals dont get that you are allowed to speak your mind. They really dont. I have no fear...fuck anyone who is extreme on any side.

 

The problem is fanatics indeed. Not atheists, not muslims, not nihilists, not commies. It sucks but fanatics are everywhere. That imam and his friend in Queens were probably killed by one as well.

 

More applause.

 

I mean look. I dont hate Muslims. I hang out in cities. I know a lot of muslims. And they are ashamed that ppl are distorting their faith. So if you dont know any real muslims..idk..maybe not talk? Bc they are first ones to tell me that isis is fucked up. I know ppl dont wanna discriminate but damn truth is truth. Hey ill break it down for u. Most ppl who practice islam afe peaceful. No need to fear them. But its not christians currently killing ppl in name of Jesus. Its muslims. Thr extreme. And yes its real. Just ask a family member of someone who died. Better yet ask the moderate muslims in their area. And female genital mutilation is ok w you too? There is a balance but a prob is a prob n muslim extremists are a prob. Try to tell me they are not.

 

http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2016/08/cross_display_disrespects_non-christian_veterans_h.html#incart_most-comments


Like these one horse towns need these lawsuits.

Looks like they are lawyer'd up

 

You're right. It seems to be the case that Americans take religion much more seriously than in Europe, and religiosity in the U.S. has been on the increase since World War II, while it seems to be on the decline in Europe. About three-fifths of Americans say religion is "very important" to them, compared to a little over one-fifth of Western Europeans. The reasons given for this phenomenon are varied and complex. Absence of established churches in the U.S. paradoxically resulted in a competitive religious market place in which churches thrived by using some of the same techniques as business enterprises. Religion in the U.S. was fueled by the Cold War, as the leading western Superpower rallied support against "Godless Communism". A pledge of allegiance without God got us through World War II, but the phrase "under God" was added in the Eisenhower Administration for the Cold War. And then there was the rise of the religious right--the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, etc,--reacting to Supreme Court decisions on matters involving prayer in schools, abortion, and later, gay rights. For a detailed, complex, and boring analysis, see sociologist Peter Berger's Religious America, Secular Europe? which covers differences in histories, intellectual traditions, social class divisions, and "institutional carriers", including church-state relations, judicial systems, and educational systems. As for that Texan though, he seems to have been talking through his Stetson hat. Civil rights lawyers would be standing in line to represent that non-church goer, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

In the United States, if you beat up a Muslim with a bat and it can be shown it was because (s)he's a Muslim, you could be charged with a hate crime which could increase the length of your sentence considerably--depending on what state you're in, and as always, what judge and jury you go before. Under federal law (18 U.S.C,, sec. 249), you can get up to ten years if your attack occurred in the context of some federally protected activity, like patronizing a public place, attending schools, voting, jury service, or applying for employment. In addition, 45 of the 50 states have laws against hate-related violence based on race, religion, or ethnicity, and 31 of those also authorize civil lawsuits for money damages based on hate-related violence. Whether or not those laws really "protect" the victims is really a question of how much deterrent effect a criminal penalty has. Obviously, people continue to commit crimes, including hate crimes, so the deterrent effect isn't completely effective. There are some people who apparently don't think much about the consequences of their actions, who don't think they'll be caught, or who are willing to accept the penalty. Those "hard core" types are hard to deter.

 

They're protected because of their history of being specifically targeted by racial bigots. The protections were initially designed for African-Americans, who were subject to institutionalized racial segregation, and extended to religious minorities who were also targeted by groups like the KKK. I think it would be hard to argue that the legal protections caused the bigotry-based violence, which was well-established before the laws were passed, and which led to them. We have a national candidate for President calling for a ban on Muslims. We have a major national TV network (FOX) regularly spewing anti-Muslim messages. And they have the same legal protection as any religious group, including atheists.

 

The Daily Mail is notorious for its biased and sensational reporting. Is there a more respectable, trustworthy source for this information? FOX doesn't count.

 

I was reposting TheSamantha's post, she had a broken hyperlink that just took to the home page of the site. There was video on the article though, do you think they doctored the video?