Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Although technically no one "should" need to be explicitly identified as a protected class, it is a necessary clarification for some people and groups. Those are the same groups that opine that, for instance, gays don't need any special protections, and yet ... they disfavor gays when it comes to affording them the same respect and dignity as anyone else. Somehow they can never see the disconnect.
I am a white male, and I live outside the Bible Belt ... therefore I have sufficient built-in privilege on the one hand and relatively little working against me on the other such that my atheism never becomes a practical problem ... so I, too, have been "content" with the first amendment. But if I had to deal with some of the professional and social pressures heaped on unbelievers in some quarters, or if I didn't have a lot of people assuming that I'm probably "just like them" in all respects based on my whiteness and maleness ... I would appreciate explicit protections too.
One good thing I do see from this (among others), is that at least people are talking and thinking about atheism. We're getting more and more relevant now. And I'm hoping with that, a better understanding of who we are (as opposed to what they THINK we are - in many cases, as heathens, evil-doers, etc.).
Although technically no one "should" need to be explicitly identified as a protected class, it is a necessary clarification for some people and groups. Those are the same groups that opine that, for instance, gays don't need any special protections, and yet ... they disfavor gays when it comes to affording them the same respect and dignity as anyone else. Somehow they can never see the disconnect.
I am a white male, and I live outside the Bible Belt ... therefore I have sufficient built-in privilege on the one hand and relatively little working against me on the other such that my atheism never becomes a practical problem ... so I, too, have been "content" with the first amendment. But if I had to deal with some of the professional and social pressures heaped on unbelievers in some quarters, or if I didn't have a lot of people assuming that I'm probably "just like them" in all respects based on my whiteness and maleness ... I would appreciate explicit protections too.
I live in Utah and as an atheist have not been hassled any more than people living elsewhere. When I first moved here I expect there to be problems but after 15 years there have been relatively few.
Madison WI specifically adds atheist to its list of protected classes.
Is it a good thing to be listed as a protected class?
I've been satisfied with the first amendment all these years...
add it to the duck list. List the traits of an organization to determine what it is. You can put up signs and have TV commercials claiming that you sell cars but when a person walks in and all you have is shoes? Well, you are a shoe store. Even if you don't sell every type of shoe.
Atheists need to make more missions to Africa and China, the religious have been heading to places where their "arguments" don't immediately spring to mind the eloquent counterarguments from gentlefolk.
Well, if we now get the same tax breaks as the religious groups.....
All you gotta do is set up a meeting place specifically to meet, sing, talk, listen, collect money, be happy... is that bars or dance clubs? ....hopefully coffee shops? Call them non-theistic community houses?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.