Should Breyer retire?
drummerboy said:
Or how about someone from America's most hated minority - atheist?
An avowed atheist doesn’t have a shot at most public offices, but most hated minority, day in and day out? Could’ve fooled me.
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
Or how about someone from America's most hated minority - atheist?
An avowed atheist doesn’t have a shot at most public offices, but most hated minority, day in and day out? Could’ve fooled me.
in terms of voters' preference I think they rank at the bottom, which is what I was referring to. (it's in between the line there)
And among religious groups I also think they're at the bottom.
Pretty hated. Especially given our numbers. It's not like they're Satanists, who are too small to count. (hard to find a count, actually) atheists+agnostics seem to be about 8% of the population.
Anywho, I stand by my statement.
True though, day in and day out they might not rank as badly, since they're generally so inoffensive that most people don't think about them unless they're asked. Then the hate comes out.
drummerboy said:
Or how about someone from America's most hated minority - atheist?
I'd settle for an agnostic.
drummerboy said:
And among religious groups I also think they're at the bottom.
Wrote a letter to the editor supporting atheism that my Southern university's newspaper published during a Billy Graham crusade. Nobody batted an eye. Used "God is dead" as the quote of the day in that same paper a few years later. A handful of students formed a somewhat repetitively named group, God Is Alive Now Today (GIANT), to call for an end to our campus funding, but it fizzled pretty fast.
That was 36 years ago, and it was a relative oasis of higher learning, but I've never felt anything close to antisemitism or the anti-Catholicism that had a North Carolina classmate in tears. And Islamophobia? I mean ... it's a statement you're certainly free to stand by.
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
And among religious groups I also think they're at the bottom.
Wrote a letter to the editor supporting atheism that my Southern university's newspaper published during a Billy Graham crusade. Nobody batted an eye. Used "God is dead" as the quote of the day in that same paper a few years later. A handful of students formed a somewhat repetitively named group, God Is Alive Now Today (GIANT), to call for an end to our campus funding, but it fizzled pretty fast.
That was 36 years ago, and it was a relative oasis of higher learning, but I've never felt anything close to antisemitism or the anti-Catholicism that had a North Carolina classmate in tears. And Islamophobia? I mean ... it's a statement you're certainly free to stand by.
As I said, in terms of day to day hatred they don't really register, because they're so harmless.
But the fact is that they rank near the bottom when people are asked about them. America might not think about them too much, but they sure don't like them when asked to consider them.
Make of that what you will.
drummerboy said:
Make of that what you will.
I'm making out that we have different ideas of what constitutes hatred.
Hatred is a big thing. Pretty broad definition.
"I want to bust your head for reasons." is hatred and has consequences.
"I'd never vote for an atheist" is hatred, and has consequences. Arguably more.
Is one worse than the other?
drummerboy said:
Is one worse than the other?
Yes. Violence is worse than a voting bias.
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
Is one worse than the other?
Yes. Violence is worse than a voting bias.
not if it leads to governments overwhelmingly dominated by religious voices because there is no one to call them on their b.s.
in fact, I would humbly submit that if we had a significant number of atheist voices in government that were respected and not hated, we might have a less violent society - especially violence driven by hatreds of the other.
but we don't. Our governments, at all levels, are overwhelmingly religious - many encouraging intolerance towards others.
So we got what we got.
PVW said:
And another seven years since that 2007-2014 rise.
DaveSchmidt said:
PVW said:
And another seven years since that 2007-2014 rise.
a none ain't no atheist.
next.
(I missed PVW's earlier post)
drummerboy said:
a none ain't no atheist.
The article manages to make the distinctions clear and still be informative, even if a little dated.
Ha, yeah didn't realize how far back. Something about the years 2016 onward my mind wants to shrink down in size I guess...DaveSchmidt said:
The article manages to make the distinctions clear and still be informative, even if a little dated.
Anyway, here's an update:
About Three-in-Ten U.S. Adults Are Now Religiously Unaffiliated
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader as to whether going past the headline is informative on the difference between "unaffiliated" and "atheist," and I'll leave it as an exercise to DB as to whether "difficulty running for public office" is a greater hardship than "running for your life."
I agree that "None" and "Atheist" are different categories.
In the polling, "Atheist" is a subset of the "Nones", at least how Pew Research conducts it.
Why America’s ‘nones’ don’t identify with a religion | Pew Research Center
PVW said:
Anyway, here's an update:
About Three-in-Ten U.S. Adults Are Now Religiously Unaffiliated
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader as to whether going past the headline is informative on the difference between "unaffiliated" and "atheist," and I'll leave it as an exercise to DB as to whether "difficulty running for public office" is a greater hardship than "running for your life."
The good news is that even if they don’t all qualify as atheists, the growing collection of “nones” may be less disposed to harbor the hatred that blocks pagan representation more effectively and destructively than the value judgments that defeat other kinds of candidates in American voting booths.
PVW said:
Ha, yeah didn't realize how far back. Something about the years 2016 onward my mind wants to shrink down in size I guess...DaveSchmidt said:
The article manages to make the distinctions clear and still be informative, even if a little dated.
Anyway, here's an update:
About Three-in-Ten U.S. Adults Are Now Religiously Unaffiliated
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader as to whether going past the headline is informative on the difference between "unaffiliated" and "atheist," and I'll leave it as an exercise to DB as to whether "difficulty running for public office" is a greater hardship than "running for your life."
I think I've pretty well explained the perils of denying atheists political office. The effects are profound.
FWIW, I think people who identify as atheist/agnostic take their beliefs seriously. People who are just "unaffiliated" are mostly just lazy about the whole thing. Kind of like low-information voters.
As an example, many of the unaffiliated say that religion still plays a large part in their lives.
er, what?
One characteristic I find appealing in candidates for public office is an ability to empathize with people who have different perspective and experience than they do. I haven't found either religiosity or its lack to be a good predictor of this. I'd definitely take negative notice if a candidate regularly described a portion of their potential constituents as lazy, though.
drummerboy said:
er, what?
I’d reply, but even after seeing this expression of yours dozens of times I’m still never sure whether it’s an invitation or a conclusion.
drummerboy said:
FWIW, I think people who identify as atheist/agnostic take their beliefs seriously. People who are just "unaffiliated" are mostly just lazy about the whole thing. Kind of like low-information voters.
As an example, many of the unaffiliated say that religion still plays a large part in their lives.
er, what?
What are you if you put up a tree and send Christmas cards?
drummerboy said:
FWIW, I think people who identify as atheist/agnostic take their beliefs seriously. People who are just "unaffiliated" are mostly just lazy about the whole thing. Kind of like low-information voters.
As an example, many of the unaffiliated say that religion still plays a large part in their lives.
er, what?
"Unaffiliated" just means they don't consider themselves part of a formal designation of a religious group.
Which is different from saying that they don't have their own, personal, beliefs - some of which they may draw from part of a religious tradition.
As far as thinking goes, atheism is easy. It’s the default we’re born with. Religion, including and maybe even especially the individually arrived-at unaffiliated variety, calls for more complicated thought and imagination. (Not that you have to be all William Blake about it.) Since my atheism requires little exercise, one way I try to keep my own imagination from atrophying into “er, whats” is appreciating the many ways that many others, in or out of a flock, embrace religion as a large part of their lives.
nohero said:
drummerboy said:
FWIW, I think people who identify as atheist/agnostic take their beliefs seriously. People who are just "unaffiliated" are mostly just lazy about the whole thing. Kind of like low-information voters.
As an example, many of the unaffiliated say that religion still plays a large part in their lives.
er, what?
"Unaffiliated" just means they don't consider themselves part of a formal designation of a religious group.
Which is different from saying that they don't have their own, personal, beliefs - some of which they may draw from part of a religious tradition.
fair enough, but then they really shouldn't be lumped in with atheists, which is what kind of started this tangent on a tangent.
DaveSchmidt said:
As far as thinking goes, atheism is easy. It’s the default we’re born with. Religion, including and maybe even especially the individually arrived-at unaffiliated variety, calls for more complicated thought and imagination. (Not that you have to be all William Blake about it.) Since my atheism requires little exercise, one way I try to keep my own imagination from atrophying into “er, whats” is appreciating the many ways that many others, in or out of a flock, embrace religion as a large part of their lives.
lol. that's bass ackwards.
good effort though.
drummerboy said:
good effort though.
You’re a relatively easy lift.
I switched to calling myself agnostic. It was casual, fence walking, and non-confrontational. I used the term atheist when I was feeling more militant.
Agnostic has a very light "who knows" kind of feeling and rarely annoys religious people as much as taking a stand against their core beliefs.
One can't know, sounds like something Linus would say to Charlie Brown and you just can't get mad at Linus. You might even vote for him
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
If we really wanted some diversity, a Protestant would be a great choice. The current court has six Catholics, two Jews and Neil Gorsuch, who is confused (or at least confusing, raised Catholic, married in an Anglican Church, refuses to publicly identify as one or the other).