Why do atheists care about religion?

I would think this would depend on how it affects a person and whether or not the inconvenience is substantial enough to warrant some sort of action. If a Christmas or other celebratory display is one that is a visual annoyance, I'm not sure that qualifies as needing action. If the display offends a culture of people, that's another issue. If you are required to pay (through taxes, etc.) for such, you probably have a beef. But, all pay taxes for some things we might disagree with. I won't list them but, these....mostly....have some benefit to us that might not be readily visible

As for a Christmas or other religious display being allowed on public property, I can't see how that would be offensive to an atheist. No one is making anyone pay special reverence to it. What might be more inconvenient to the atheist, however, could be dealing with the stupid shopping frenzy that comes with the holiday season. The crowds, snarled traffic, price gouging in some instances, etc., are the real pain in the neck.

For me, a example of offensiveness on public property were the the "White" and "Colored" rest rooms and water fountains before the civil rights movement.


Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator

Show me where any one has a right not to be offended.

It's got nothing to do with rights as guaranteed by government statute. It has to do with being reasonable. That's contained in my first sentence. Let's try an example here. Supposing a group put up an Easter display depicting the crucification of Jesus. That, in itself, should not be (IMO) inherently offensive. If the display contained anti-Semite symbolism such as putting big JEW signs on those carrying out the execution, that would be offensive and, IMO, unreasonable. Law and good reason aren't always on the same page but we'll use either one that best suits our purposes.

rest rooms and water fountains was that those for whites were obviously better. I lived a year in N.C back in the early '60s. As a Yankee kid, I could see the contrast immediately. In the local Winn Dixie, the water fountain for white folk was a nice one with built in cooler. The one that said "colored" was just a small spigot and catch tray. I couldn't visit the restroom interiors of both but the doors of the white's rest room had nicely polished handles and good paint. The other door was obviously not well kept. I suspected the interior fixtures differed as well. That was a worse message than just the separation of the races.

......with the comments of your reply re: the separate but very unequal facilities. It was as if that is what the "colored" deserved.

The only city "up North" I visited prior to the '60s and also before the Boblo Island riot, was Detroit. I saw the same conditions there.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator

It is my right that there is a seperation between church and state. Expecting it to be honored is far from ridiculous...

to seperation between church and state (which is NOT in the Constitution), has nothing to do about being offended

Where did anyone in this topic claim they had a right to not be offended or that the actual issue of government sponsored religious displays was about being offended at all? Got a link?

what prompted my comment. I was agreeing that it's not reasonable. My "winds of change" comment was to suggest that this issue might be rectified in time but maybe not as soon as you'd like. That they sometimes "blow backward" refers to the backlash that often occurs when an issue is forced to the forefront. I'll suggest civil rights and racial integration are a classic example of that notion.

Voters want and deserve to have as much information about what's inside a candidates head as they can get. One legitimate question, IMO, is that of religion. Why? Because it should say much about that candidate in a very few words. One who claims to be atheist will probably leave quite a void in the minds of most...wondering just where this person will lean on certain important issues. Of course claiming a specific religious affiliation can put one's neck out there too because it gives voters reason to hold their candidate's feet to the fire. But, again, I agree that atheists shouldn't be excluded from trying to gain any public office.

I suspect there are a number of people who, very early on, realized that they had to behave as though they were religious even though they are not. For that reason, people should not use religion as a measure of how a candidate would stand. They should see what he actually has to say, and watch how he handles himself.

that depict them in the best light possible rather than just say in words what they stand for. Sometimes the badges change for the individual audience as well...depending on whom they are trying to impress. A candidate that claims to be a good Baptist, a Boy Scout leader, and has served in the Army during a war will have an appeal to certain people and turn others away. As well, that same person can add either a Pro Life or Pro Choice badge and non of the others will even matter to some folks. But showing the badges avoids being subject to a litany of individual questions...many of which are easy to challenge. In the flurry of a political campaign, it seems what you wear to the party you're invited to is more important than than what people know about you....that's because they, essentially, tend to know very little.

Better this: An atheist avoids political suicide and is seen in church(es) regularly during the campaign. Takes the oath when elected. Now he's free to do what he likes, without a "moral compass", as some see it. IOW he begins his career in office as a liar.
(I can put a smiley there, but those of you involved in a political system might not be so happy about this truth.)

old political tradition that should be preserved and handed down to the next. It takes great skill and cunning to invent new lies when the public gets wise to the old ones. So don't knock them just for displaying their best talents.


Hope this isn't over the line.

Over the line? Not for me; it isn't part of any system I belong to.
Pruner:
Political American:

I guy shouldn't have to worry about such things just so he can do what he wants to do. If you think about it, it's kind of like getting hired. In any 'normal' kind of job, by law, religion is doesn't play a part in the hiring process. But if a guy wants to be in an elected office, then he has to worry about it. It shouldn't be the case as an elected official, either.

religion doesn't play a part in the hiring process"

So there's a flaw there, IYO, in the political system. (Because they have to dissemble, they probably will.) I agree. And the flaw guarantees at least some hypocrites getting in, just because their hypocrisy is more successful. The results we see on the evening news. Time to help your system evolve, perhaps.

The reason wny the government wants religions to be around is for the reason that without religion people would do anything they want and their wouldnt be anything liek uf u do good and no evil you will end up in Heaven. that is my take on it. Athiest are suppose to get all the same things that religious people do.

So all those jails are filled with atheists, right? They must be if religion keeps people from doing anything they want.

Hmmm...or maybe religion doesn't function as you seem to think it does.

Dan

What an atheist is like. It certainly is not "down the path of nihilism."

I have the experience of -- well -- my own experience. What is there to think through when I can see I'm not going down the path of nihlism. I'm going by this definition, so maybe we are talking past each other?

only physicists have the Answer. (And it wasn't 42; more like e or pi.)
He noted (correctly, BTW) that Everything seems to be made of the particles he spent his life studying. When he died all his particles would then become part of the Circle of ... well, Cosmos.

He didn't acknowledge the existence of the "soul" posited by many, so his view was anything but nihilist IMO. And it had the advantage of being internally consistent. Maybe he could be your High Priest or something.

Aside: He deserves his reputation as a teacher. I came across a reprint of his famous lectures in Cal Tech Freshman Physics, and got more insight and understanding than I did from several college courses. My kind of guy ... up to a point.

Would it be OK if the Pledge actually said, "Allah Akbar"?