ForumsWEPRAtheists and Homosexuals

48 5406
cbreezy623
offline
cbreezy623
74 posts
170

As an atheist I am a victim of prejudice. (Nothing too serious it's more of an annoyance. Things like people telling me I'm going to hell, go to church, bla bla bla.) I was wondering who you guys think has it harder when it comes to prejudice and hate, gays or atheists? (I am in the US, where both groups are treated like crap.)

  • 48 Replies
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,544 posts
2,210

It all depends. I've heard from people who are both gay and an atheist say how coming out as an atheist was harder and others say coming out as homosexual was harder. So I guess it's just the situation each individual finds them self in.

thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,360 posts
1,525

my guess would be that being gay is more difficult. there are more atheists then gays in most places and usually the smaller the group the easier it is to hate it. also, people "can use" the unnatural excuse on being gay but they cant do it on being atheist (then again.... who knows how far stupidity can go)

Zophia
offline
Zophia
9,472 posts
4,835

Overall? Very definitely gays.
Or have there been a bunch of hate crimes and unfair laws against atheists that I haven't heard of? ._.

Admittedly I'm not in the US and religion is much less of a big deal over here.

cbreezy623
offline
cbreezy623
74 posts
170

believe it or not there are laws.

Arkansas:
"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."

Maryland:
"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.â

Mississippi:
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."

South Carolina:
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

Tennessee:
"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:
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

SSTG
offline
SSTG
12,616 posts
9,475

Wow, so many retarded states! :O

cbreezy623
offline
cbreezy623
74 posts
170

Notice a pattern? All of those are southern states. And yes I do somewhat consider maryland a southern state.

Zophia
offline
Zophia
9,472 posts
4,835

believe it or not there are laws.
[snip]


... Secularity failure. I didn't realize it was that bad. :/
Devoidless
offline
Devoidless
3,723 posts
3,620

The thing is with those laws is that if it ever gets pulled to try and prevent someone from getting in office, it quickly gets struck down as being unconstitutional. They are carry overs from way in the past.

VonHeisenbourg
offline
VonHeisenbourg
377 posts
800

Those laws sort of make sense considering that in the American anthem are the words "in God we trust". So... if you are an atheist and you don't believe in your own countries anthem why should you hold office?

I can see the logic behind those laws.

Dark123456789
offline
Dark123456789
23 posts
20

Those laws sort of make sense considering that in the American anthem are the words "in God we trust". So... if you are an atheist and you don't believe in your own countries anthem why should you hold office?

I can see the logic behind those laws.


Government should not be determined by religion. Using religion to decide how the world should be run is forcing religious beliefs on people. Those laws mere remnants of the primitive past where people thought that difference meant evil. Those laws should be abolished.
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,562 posts
4,140

Those laws sort of make sense considering that in the American anthem are the words "in God we trust". So... if you are an atheist and you don't believe in your own countries anthem why should you hold office?


Please don't say that this is part of America's anthem, because it really isn't. This was imprinted on coins the 1800s I believe after Reconstruction. Afterwards, there was a very, very recent change to the Flag adding "Under God" to the Pledge in 1957 during the Red Scare. This was to somehow reassure ourselves that we aren't "like the Russians and not like Communists".

This shouldn't even be here, let alone be used as a reason for Religious requirements.
chives1
offline
chives1
27 posts
910

But also in the Bill of rights it says we have freedom of religion, and frankly if you don't believe in a Supreme Being and that's your religion, fine with me. It seems that some people seem to see things more clearly without religion, such as Galileo when he was trying to figure out what sunspots were.

Christopher Schiener, a fellow astronomer, was trying to figure out what the mysterious spots over the sun were at the same time as Galileo, however he held in his belief of the Catholic Church's doctrine that the heavens were perfect. He argued that the spots were other planets and moons passing between the Sun and the Earth were the cause, but Galileo, less influenced by the doctrine, studied the spots and found out that they seemingly contracted near the edge, so he proved they were flat objects on the surface of the sun.

So religion can cloud people's minds from the truth, as it has been proved many times in history. As for gays, if religion is saying that homosexual marriage is a sin or a bad thing, and the Supreme Being who told us these principles created and does not directly strike down these gays, then why should we?

VonHeisenbourg
offline
VonHeisenbourg
377 posts
800

Please don't say that this is part of America's anthem, because it really isn't.

In my own opinion if you quote something out of an anthem that has been there for many years it is in my belief a very definite part of the anthem.

This shouldn't even be here, let alone be used as a reason for Religious requirements.

All I have to say is that for the aforementioned reason I disagree.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,328 posts
24,220

For many, the two are conflated.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,328 posts
24,220

Frank has a definite point. When people claim that God and religion were what America was built on, and cite the anthem, they haven't actually acknowledged that such a change is very recent if we consider the whole span of American history.

Showing 1-15 of 48