lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Atheists are subjected to discrimation?
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 03-09-2009, 05:36 PM   #1
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Atheists are subjected to discrimation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
That premise doesn't appear to hold any weight. The minority of the population of religious people, which are an overwhelming majority, are too tiny to skew results. If anything, there is more to be fear by those that are not religious who fear the bigotry and persecution of those deluded by religion.
Funny I usually see it coming from the atheists not the religious people. And I'm sure that also explains the congressional report I had posted about in a seperate topic? I'm questioning the data integrity and the objectivity of the researchers, I'd also like to know where they conducted the test.

Last edited by GarfieldJL; 03-09-2009 at 05:57 PM.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 10:14 PM   #2
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
That premise doesn't appear to hold any weight. The minority of the population of religious people, which are an overwhelming majority, are too tiny to skew results. If anything, there is more to be fear by those that are not religious who fear the bigotry and persecution of those deluded by religion.
If Christians are persecuted in the States, then what are atheists, Garfield?

Atheists cannot hold public office in several states.
Atheists cannot be members of the Boy Scouts.
Atheists cannot (or could not) testify in court in several states.
40% of Americans have stated they'd not vote for an otherwise qualified atheist running for President.
People coming out as atheists in the States risk career damage, are likely to lose friends and face bullying and freezing-out, etc. etc. etc.

How are Christians persecuted? By having your beliefs questioned?

I find it deeply insulting to people who are actually persecuted (such as gypsies or for that matter Christians in some nations) when American Christians, who make up the vast majority of the country's population and control all three branches of its government, find the courage to whine about 'persecution', often while being extremely intolerant to actual minority groups such as gays, atheists, etc.

Garfield, think about that man in Iraq who converted to Christianity and then had to be helped out of the country so that he wouldn't get killed. If American Christians face persecution, what do you call what Iraqi Christians go through?

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2009, 10:17 PM   #3
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post
If Christians are persecuted in the States, then what are atheists, Garfield?

Atheists cannot hold public office in several states.
Atheists cannot be members of the Boy Scouts.
Atheists cannot (or could not) testify in court in several states.
40% of Americans have stated they'd not vote for an otherwise qualified atheist running for President.
People coming out as atheists in the States risk career damage, are likely to lose friends and face bullying and freezing-out, etc. etc. etc.

I find it deeply insulting to people who are actually persecuted (such as gypsies or for that matter Christians in some nations) when American Christians, who make up the vast majority of the country's population and control all three branches of its government, find the courage to whine about 'persecution', often while being extremely intolerant to actual minority groups such as gays, atheists, etc.

Garfield? If you believe that the US was founded as a Christian nation and that the Christians in the US are being 'persecuted', you live in a fantasy world. Get back to reality, please, we're trying to run a planet here.
Post some sources please, it sounds like you're referring to a bunch of laws that just haven't been challenged yet and people forgot about them.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 12:07 PM   #4
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
BSA on atheists: Atheists in Scouting

Atheists and public office: Clickie

Atheists and testifying in court: Clicke

Voting for atheists: Here

I'm sure you'll find some way to excuse all of these, but in the meantime, please tell me how Christians in the States being "persecuted".

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 12:51 PM   #5
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Okay and you know I can debunk at least 3 of your claims off the cuff. Only one that may be valid is the first one and that needs better sources on your part.

Atheists and public Office: could you get some legitimate sources plz, the ones in your search are well known propaganda pulpits. (Like the state constitutions in question)

Atheists and testifying in court: the idea behind this is being under oath, and the idea is to tell the truth when giving testimony. By saying they don't have to be under oath, it's like saying they can't be charged for deliberately giving false testimony (perjury) because they weren't under oath.

Voting for atheists: You got to be kidding, it's called a secret ballot for a reason. Seriously there are people that might not vote for an aetheist for that reason as there would be people that would vote for an aetheist.

See Exchange between myself and several others in this topic:
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthrea...14#post2594414

Specifically SkinWalker claiming that religious people aren't as intelligent as aetheists.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 04:31 PM   #6
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Okay and you know I can debunk at least 3 of your claims off the cuff. Only one that may be valid is the first one and that needs better sources on your part.
Actually you can't. Read on if you've fallen for my cliffhanger:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garf
Atheists and public Office: could you get some legitimate sources plz, the ones in your search are well known propaganda pulpits. (Like the state constitutions in question)
@DE - hope you don't mind if I do some educating

Firstly:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitution of these United States of America, Article VI, Clause 3
... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MD state constitution, emphasis mine
"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MI state constitution
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC state constitution
"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; ..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TX state constitution
"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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA state constitution, my home state!
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."
Sources:
http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/4.../pdf/const.pdf
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a04.htm
http://www.constitution.legis.state.tx.us/
http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html
http://www.sos.state.ms.us/pubs/cons...nstitution.asp

and there are others, but I've spent a while compiling these so if you want more, just ask. I'll link you up the other 3-4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfy
Specifically SkinWalker claiming that religious people aren't as intelligent as aetheists.
That was a normative claim that was thoroughly backed by empirical evidence. [www.m-w.com if you need it]

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 04:40 PM   #7
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
EnderWiggin, you do realize that many of the examples you are citing would be easy to change if they ever got challenged.

And as I pointed out to SkinWalker they used to say that people of color weren't as intelligent using the same style of experimentation the people he is citing are using.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 04:46 PM   #8
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
EnderWiggin, you do realize that many of the examples you are citing would be easy to change if they ever got challenged.
Irrelevant. They exist, they are enforced. Two premises that back DE's claim, which you said was false, and I quote, "off the cuff." Syllogism ftw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfy
And as I pointed out to SkinWalker they used to say that people of color weren't as intelligent using the same style of experimentation the people he is citing are using.
And this is offtopic, as well as fallacious and altogether false.

Good post though - irrelevant, offtopic, fallacious, false.

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 05:07 PM   #9
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
Irrelevant. They exist, they are enforced. Two premises that back DE's claim, which you said was false, and I quote, "off the cuff." Syllogism ftw.
Actually, it isn't enforced, if it was it would be overturned by now...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin
And this is offtopic, as well as fallacious and altogether false.
Since it potentially invalidates the entire study it isn't offtopic, and since I found articles that even found discrimination at the Smithsonian Institute with Aetheists targetting someone because they were Christian, you can't argue it's false either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin
Good post though - irrelevant, offtopic, fallacious, false.
There you go again...
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 05:19 PM   #10
SW01
3 Years in the Lurk
 
SW01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Northern Ireland, UK
Posts: 1,075
Current Game: Real Life
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Actually, it isn't enforced, if it was it would be overturned by now...
Out of curiosity, is there any evidence of that? Such as a court case or judicial dictum? I am well aware that courts often decline to apply anachronistic legislation, but surely a constitutional matter would require something more concrete?


SW01 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 05:20 PM   #11
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by SW01 View Post
Out of curiosity, is there any evidence of that? Such as a court case or judicial dictum? I am well aware that courts often decline to apply anachronistic legislation, but surely a constitutional matter would require something more concrete?
Actually it doesn't, all you need is an actual case for it to be taken to court and none have come up to take it to court. I've taken a Constitutional Law class, that's basically how it works.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 05:31 PM   #12
SW01
3 Years in the Lurk
 
SW01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Northern Ireland, UK
Posts: 1,075
Current Game: Real Life
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Actually it doesn't, all you need is an actual case for it to be taken to court and none have come up to take it to court.
Then there is still the danger that it can be used by a public body, though many may merely be exercsing common sense in not using it. Still, it is preferential that for a document so important as a constitution - state, federal or otherwise - no such difficulties should exist.

The lack of any judicial assurance is worrying. Assuming the American Judicial hierarchy is similar to ours, and knowing that the Supreme Courts are vested with the power to strike down unconstitutional laws, it would seem that an applicant would need to manage to gain leave to appeal before it could be disapplied, an overly costly, lengthy and burdensome procedure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
I've taken a Constitutional Law class, that's basically how it works.
The reason I ask is that I have seen similar situations in British Constitutional Law classes, where we had some truly ancient and highly problematic laws that needed to be clarified, which could only be done properly after three trials, in order to reach the House of Lords (=Supreme Court).

My point is, while such regulations remain on the books, especially in a constitutional framework, they are dangerous. Those linked by EW really should not exist today, something I'm sure we all can agree on!


SW01 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 10:11 PM   #13
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
EnderWiggin, you do realize that many of the examples you are citing would be easy to change if they ever got challenged.
Why? Merely because they're unconstitutional and bigoted? Merely because you say so? Merely because you disagree with them or find them outrageous?

There's lots and lots of atheists in America. Do you really think none of them have had the bright idea of dragging this bigotry off to court? Do you really believe that, say, none of the parents of atheist kids who weren't allowed into the Boy Scouts have tried to challenge the rule? Don't be ridiculous.

Quote:
Actually, it isn't enforced, if it was it would be overturned by now...
Please, please don't make blanket statements when it's blatantly obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Use qualifiers such as "I think", "I find it hard to believe" for such instances.

Quote:
Quote:
And as I pointed out to SkinWalker they used to say that people of color weren't as intelligent using the same style of experimentation the people he is citing are using.
And this is offtopic, as well as fallacious and altogether false.
First of all, a 'person of colour' and a religious person are two altogether different things. Secondly, even though I'm Caucasian, I'm downright insulted by your implication that the racists of old used actual scientific research as opposed to pseudo-science when they stated 'people of colour' were less intelligent than religious people.

People with a higher education and more income are less likely to be religious. Going out on a limb, I'd say this is because these people don't need religion as much as people living in poverty, but also of course because their education allows them to easier see through things like Creationism. Stating this, or that relatively low intelligence level and religious beliefs correlate, is entirely different from saying something like "them thar Negroes sure are dumb".

Quote:
I've taken a Constitutional Law class, that's basically how it works.
And I am a practicing lawyer, and have been for fifteen years (don't believe that? Well, prove it, then !).

Oh, and Garfield, how are theists in America persecuted?

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 10:23 PM   #14
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post
Why? Merely because they're unconstitutional and bigoted? Merely because you say so? Merely because you disagree with them or find them outrageous?
They has to be a situation where it can end up in court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
There's lots and lots of atheists in America. Do you really think none of them have had the bright idea of dragging this bigotry off to court? Do you really believe that, say, none of the parents of atheist kids who weren't allowed into the Boy Scouts have tried to challenge the rule? Don't be ridiculous.
The Boy Scouts are a Private Organization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Please, please don't make blanket statements when it's blatantly obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Use qualifiers such as "I think", "I find it hard to believe" for such instances.
It's actually quite simple they have to win an election admit they are an atheist and it ends up in court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
First of all, a 'person of colour' and a religious person are two altogether different things. Secondly, even though I'm Caucasian, I'm downright insulted by your implication that the racists of old used actual scientific research as opposed to pseudo-science when they stated 'people of colour' were less intelligent than religious people.
Actually discrimination is discrimination, and in the case of Jewish people, it is racial discrimination. And quite frankly it's the same pseudo-science to justify racism that is being used here, I would say the same thing if the study said Atheists aren't as intelligent as people whom believe in God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
People with a higher education and more income are less likely to be religious. Going out on a limb, I'd say this is because these people don't need religion as much as people living in poverty, but also of course because their education allows them to easier see through things like Creationism. Stating this, or that relatively low intelligence level and religious beliefs correlate, is entirely different from saying something like "them thar Negroes sure are dumb".
Or they are less likely to admit it for fear of discrimination in the workplace.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
And I am a practicing lawyer, and have been for fifteen years (don't believe that? Well, prove it, then !).
Fine you're a lawyer, what is your specialization as a lawyer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Oh, and Garfield, how are theists in America persecuted?
Already posted the link to the other topic at least twice, including where I found evidence of discrimination being practiced at the Smithsonian Institute, and I could name a few Universities that have been accused of being anti-semitic.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 10:39 PM   #15
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
The Boy Scouts are a Private Organization.
I'm sure it'd be totally OK to you if a private organization receiving public funding announced that theists could not be members.

Quote:
Fine you're a lawyer, what is your specialization as a lawyer?
I think the point went far over your head.

Quote:
Already posted the link to the other topic at least twice, including where I found evidence of discrimination being practiced at the Smithsonian Institute
And discrimination in the workplace is persecution how?

Garfield, seriously, stuff it. The very idea that the group that by far makes up the majority of Americans and controls the government is "persecuted" is ludicrous.

Quote:
I could name a few Universities that have been accused of being anti-semitic.
Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with religion more than any other kind of racism.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 10:40 PM   #16
SW01
3 Years in the Lurk
 
SW01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Northern Ireland, UK
Posts: 1,075
Current Game: Real Life
I still find it incredible that seemingly nothing has been considered, ruled or written on those sections of the constitutions. One would assume that such a glaringly obvious, undeniably discriminatory and wholly unjust, unneccessary and unconstitutional requirement of faith - considering that the US is in no way (legally, anyway) a theocracy - would be pounced upon by your Justices or Professors of Law. I think a little research may be in order for me tonight...

EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
And discrimination in the workplace is persecution how?
A critical difference, of course. Persecution entails all the nastiness of some of the examples given previously. Discrimination is typically denying of opportunities (for example) on the basis of some petty fact of opinion, belief or biology.

ANOTHER EDIT: On researching the constitutions, it seems that they have been declared void by the Supreme Court, in Torcaso v Watkins (1961) 367 US 488 (Link - Judgement delivered by Mr. Justice Black). Although, as I said, it was not a simple matter of having a court disapply it - it took the Supreme Court to do it and re-assert the primacy of the Federal Constitution. You see why such things have to be kept up to date?



Last edited by SW01; 03-10-2009 at 11:05 PM.
SW01 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 11:06 PM   #17
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post
I'm sure it'd be totally OK to you if a private organization receiving public funding announced that theists could not be members.
Boy Scouts doesn't receive public money to my knowledge, and there are some atheist organizations I don't believe any theist would want to be a member of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I think the point went far over your head.
It didn't, different lawyers specialize in different aspects of the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
And discrimination in the workplace is persecution how?
It's basically one and the same the sole difference being on scale.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Garfield, seriously, stuff it. The very idea that the group that by far makes up the majority of Americans and controls the government is "persecuted" is ludicrous.
It would be ludicrous if it wasn't for the fact it is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with religion more than any other kind of racism.
It actually does because to be Jewish is not just a race, it's also a religion too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SW01
I still find it incredible that seemingly nothing has been considered, ruled or written on those sections of the constitutions. One would assume that such a glaringly obvious, undeniably discriminatory and wholly unjust, unneccessary and unconstitutional requirement of faith - considering that the US is in no way (legally, anyway) a theocracy - would be pounced upon by your Justices or Professors of Law. I think a little research may be in order for me tonight...
Well the thing Dagobahn is neglecting to mention is the fact there has to be something that happens where a person is elected or something of that nature and not allowed to take office then because they are an atheist. You can't take it to court until there is actually an incident where there would be a legitimate lawsuit. The Supreme Court can't pre-emptively rule on laws as being unconstitutional.

Because an atheist hasn't won an election in those states where a legitimate suit could then take place, there is no grounds for a lawsuit.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 11:32 PM   #18
SW01
3 Years in the Lurk
 
SW01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Northern Ireland, UK
Posts: 1,075
Current Game: Real Life
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Well the thing Dagobahn is neglecting to mention is the fact there has to be something that happens where a person is elected or something of that nature and not allowed to take office then because they are an atheist. You can't take it to court until there is actually an incident where there would be a legitimate lawsuit. The Supreme Court can't pre-emptively rule on laws as being unconstitutional.

Because an atheist hasn't won an election in those states where a legitimate suit could then take place, there is no grounds for a lawsuit.
Yes, I am very well aware of the universal principle of common law courts that hypothetical suits will not be entertained.

However, I quote Lord Scott of Foscote in R (Rusbridger) v A.G. [2003]: 'it is most undesirable that obsolete statutes should remain unrepealed'. To me, this applies a fortiori in cases of constitutional importance, in any jurisdiction.

And I know my edit was made moments before your post, so of course I excuse it's being overlooked, but the issue has essentially been put to bed - quite long ago. What is appalling, though, is that in the face of a Supreme Court decision, these state constitutions have not been amended.


SW01 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-10-2009, 11:39 PM   #19
SW01
3 Years in the Lurk
 
SW01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Northern Ireland, UK
Posts: 1,075
Current Game: Real Life
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Sueing because you lost the election because you happen to be atheist isn't a legitimate lawsuit.
Ahh, but bringing an action for review or on discrimination because one was not permitted to stand for election on such a basis would be.

And, again, it has happened already, for one taking action due to being disqualified on grounds of non-belief. See one of my previous posts for Torcaso.


SW01 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 06:19 PM   #20
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by SW01 View Post
Ahh, but bringing an action for review or on discrimination because one was not permitted to stand for election on such a basis would be.
Well here is the trick they don't claim they are an atheist, if they win the election, then bring it up and when they try to deny their right to hold office then, then they can sue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SW01
And, again, it has happened already, for one taking action due to being disqualified on grounds of non-belief. See one of my previous posts for Torcaso.
Link plz, anyways you can't sue on a hypothetical situation, there has to be something that has actually happened where the incident actually happened. You can't sue that you're being denied your rights if you lose the election so you wouldn't have been allowed to take the office anyways. The court would have to throw it out because they wouldn't have been allowed to hold the office anyways because they lost the election.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 06:28 PM   #21
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Atheists are subjected to discrimination?

Certainly not here.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 06:33 PM   #22
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
Atheists are subjected to discrimination?

Certainly not here.
Agreed, actually I would argue that people that believe in God are discriminated against here.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 06:40 PM   #23
SW01
3 Years in the Lurk
 
SW01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Northern Ireland, UK
Posts: 1,075
Current Game: Real Life
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Well here is the trick they don't claim they are an atheist, if they win the election, then bring it up and when they try to deny their right to hold office then, then they can sue.
I'm not certain if you got my point - forgive me if I am mistaken. I was suggesting another way that a potential candidate would be eligible to bring suit against the offending state government.

IF a person wished to stand, and he was refused the right because he was an atheist, that would be a prima facie actionable breach of the Constitutional assurance that there be no test of religion for any position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Link plz
As I said, the link was in a previous post on this very thread. But, here it is again - Torcaso v Watkins (1961) 367 US 488 - Mr. Justice Black

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
anyways you can't sue on a hypothetical situation, there has to be something that has actually happened where the incident actually happened. You can't sue that you're being denied your rights if you lose the election so you wouldn't have been allowed to take the office anyways. The court would have to throw it out because they wouldn't have been allowed to hold the office anyways because they lost the election.
Yes, but that scenario is still inherently different from both the precedent AND the alternate situation - in neither is there any mention of losing the election.

And, I already discussed the doctrine on hypothetical cases. I am painfully well aware of it from my own studies of the law.


SW01 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 06:53 PM   #24
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Agreed, actually I would argue that people that believe in God are discriminated against here.
This is senate. If you cannot present a full argument, then you may be challenged.

If you cannot present proof of your god, then it is an unreasonable claim. If you present god into an argument but cannot present anything else, then your argument can be debated to be based on superstition or speculation until solid proof or sources is given.

If you don't like it, then there are other forums on LF. If you feel like people do not agree with you (which no-one in the rules say anyone has to), then there are many christian forums which would be more than delighted to speak with you on such topics.

I can respect our belief in god in KOTOR, SWTOR, Feedback, General, etc. Any other forum. But in Senate, we have the ability to debate with one another and present arguments based on any reasoning we may have at the time. We are not here to coddle your beliefs or bring you comfort, as that is the job of your beliefs to do, not senate's.

But, if you want to present a reasoned argument on god and present solid proof of your gods existence, then I would be more than willing to speak about your god. But, seeing as I do not believe in your god, I have the right to call you on your current lack of proof.

Atheists are still a minority in the world, and you can feel free to walk along your majority road onto any places people would be willing to talk and accept your beliefs as truth (which, again, a good majority of the world is on your sie). They may not be a minority here as much, but they certainly are more vocal in the debate forum. So, in the end, if you don't like being in this particular corner of the internet where athiests are vocal... go to the other 80% of the world that agrees with you and would be more than willing to do so.

In the end, we bring any discomfort we feel upon ourselves by entering Senate and reading posts. If you feel the bottom 20% is oppressing you, then just leave to save yourself the discomfort.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 07:20 PM   #25
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
This is senate. If you cannot present a full argument, then you may be challenged.

If you cannot present proof of your god, then it is an unreasonable claim. If you present god into an argument but cannot present anything else, then your argument can be debated to be based on superstition or speculation until solid proof or sources is given.
And you cannot disprove his existence either, and that's the interesting thing. We know there are things that exist that we cannot directly observe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery
If you don't like it, then there are other forums on LF. If you feel like people do not agree with you (which no-one in the rules say anyone has to), then there are many christian forums which would be more than delighted to speak with you on such topics.
I don't care whether or not people agree with me, I don't take offense on that. I take offense to comments like people not being as intelligent as someone else based on beliefs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery
I can respect our belief in god in KOTOR, SWTOR, Feedback, General, etc. Any other forum. But in Senate, we have the ability to debate with one another and present arguments based on any reasoning we may have at the time. We are not here to coddle your beliefs or bring you comfort, as that is the job of your beliefs to do, not senate's.
I have no argument with debating things, if you want to argue the existance of God, that's one thing, saying people aren't as intelligent because they believe in God is in my view Religious Discrimination. And that is what I'm referring to.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 07:29 PM   #26
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
saying people aren't as intelligent because they believe in God is in my view Religious Discrimination. And that is what I'm referring to.
Well then it sure is a good thing I haven't seen anyone make that claim in the Senate or I probably would have to step in and remove such blatantly ad hominem remarks.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 07:47 PM   #27
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,055
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Someone posted a study saying Atheist have higher IQ than people of Faith. I saw nothing that stated an individual Christian was less intelligent that and individual Atheist. Since the data was empirical I also found no argument with the study’s conclusion.

I am a Christian and I found nothing offensive about the study or other members’ remarks.

@below - I read that the first ten times you wrote that, I also read skinwalker reply.

Last edited by mimartin; 03-11-2009 at 08:03 PM.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 07:53 PM   #28
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
Someone posted a study saying Atheist have higher IQ than people of Faith. I saw nothing that stated an individual Christian was less intelligent that and individual Atheist. Since the data was empirical I also found no argument with the study’s conclusion.

I am a Christian and I found nothing offensive about the study or other members’ remarks.
Well the added problem is that the study was conducted by a man whom had been suspended for tampering with research data in an experiment that was similar to the one you are referring to (If i remember correctly it was research to determine that one gender was more intelligent than the other).
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 09:11 PM   #29
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Agreed, actually I would argue that people that believe in God are discriminated against here.
Here as in LF? Disagree. I know there are a bunch of us Christians wandering around here, and I've never been discriminated against. Of course, I've never brought religion into a debate thread, so...

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
I take offense to comments like people not being as intelligent as someone else based on beliefs .... saying people aren't as intelligent because they believe in God is in my view Religious Discrimination. And that is what I'm referring to.
Luckily it was a normative claim based off of objective evidenced and thoroughly backed in a research study

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
Someone posted a study saying Atheist have higher IQ than people of Faith. I saw nothing that stated an individual Christian was less intelligent that and individual Atheist. Since the data was empirical I also found no argument with the study’s conclusion.

I am a Christian and I found nothing offensive about the study or other members’ remarks.

@below - I read that the first ten times you wrote that, I also read skinwalker reply.
QFEEEEEEE.

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 09:15 PM   #30
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
Luckily it was a normative claim based off of objective evidenced and thoroughly backed in a research study
So a normal research study has the head researcher with a reputation for compromising the integrity of the research data. That soooo inspires my confidence in the research community...
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 09:20 PM   #31
SW01
3 Years in the Lurk
 
SW01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Northern Ireland, UK
Posts: 1,075
Current Game: Real Life
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldLJ
So a normal research study has the head researcher with a reputation for compromising the integrity of the research data. That soooo inspires my confidence in the research community...
You plaster an entire community because of one person's actions? You'll forgive me if I say that seems more than a little arbitrary.


SW01 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 09:24 PM   #32
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by SW01 View Post
You plaster an entire community because of one person's actions? You'll forgive me if I say that seems more than a little arbitrary.
Well people seem to be considering that study to be as good as gold when the researcher is known for tampering with the experiment's results, that doesn't sound very encouraging.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 09:26 PM   #33
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
So a normal research study has the head researcher with a reputation for compromising the integrity of the research data. That soooo inspires my confidence in the research community...
Unfortunately for you this does not affect the other sources Skin provided.

Also, one incident does not count as a "reputation." This is a major logical fallacy that causes your entire argument to go out the window See: "Poisoning the Well". Sorry

When you can come up with an argument that goes against the evidence Skin provided, (without a logically fallacious argument, of course) please let me know.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 09:29 PM   #34
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
No, it does sum it up, because if it had been an accident that would be one thing but the key word is deliberately.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 09:31 PM   #35
SW01
3 Years in the Lurk
 
SW01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Northern Ireland, UK
Posts: 1,075
Current Game: Real Life
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfeildLJ
Well people seem to be considering that study to be as good as gold when the researcher is known for tampering with the experiment's results, that doesn't sound very encouraging.
Well then it may be fairer to say that the legitimacy and veracity of that individual piece of research is questionable. Making blanket statements does little to help a position, in my opinion.

I personally think very little of tests of intelligence between sub-sets of people. Simply for the reason that I have met fools from all walks of life, and have found my own intelligence severly lacking in the presence of others from the same groups!



Last edited by SW01; 03-11-2009 at 09:33 PM. Reason: added quotation for clarity's sake
SW01 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 09:32 PM   #36
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
No, it does sum it up
What the hell?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfy
because if it had been an accident that would be one thing but the key word is deliberately.
Repeating yourself is getting boring so I'm afraid I'll have to excuse myself Sorry.

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 09:35 PM   #37
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Oh I get it, so you think because it's a source that promotes atheism it's legimate no matter what, if this had been a study with a researcher that said people whom believe in god are smarter with the same reputation you saying you'd believe that? I'm getting the impression you wouldn't.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 09:46 PM   #38
SW01
3 Years in the Lurk
 
SW01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Northern Ireland, UK
Posts: 1,075
Current Game: Real Life
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldLJ
Oh I get it, so you think because it's a source that promotes atheism it's legimate no matter what, if this had been a study with a researcher that said people whom believe in god are smarter with the same reputation you saying you'd believe that? I'm getting the impression you wouldn't.
Actually, I'd put them both in the same waste-paper basket marked 'Victorian Throwback Research', along with all those that tried to predict criminality by the shape of a person's skull.


SW01 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2009, 10:07 PM   #39
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by SW01 View Post
Actually, I'd put them both in the same waste-paper basket marked 'Victorian Throwback Research', along with all those that tried to predict criminality by the shape of a person's skull.
Which is why I considered the research SkinWalker was using to be complete and total garbage.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 12:29 AM   #40
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Which is why I considered the research SkinWalker was using to be complete and total garbage.
I don't think this to be the case. I think -and this is just my opinion- that you ignored the research I cited because it threatens your preconceived notion of the way things must be. I think (again, just my opinion) that you exemplify the conclusions of studies that link conservatism, extreme religiosity, and cognitive function. I base this opinion on the fact that my synopses of the various research demonstrated how even if you fallaciously conclude that one of the researchers had issues of negligence with a totally different study that the data stand on their own merit and are available independently from the statistical analyses conducted by said researcher.

Moreover, the statistical methods are clearly outlined as are the data (which are from an independent source). It, therefore, follows that refusing to acknowledge or to even critically analyze the data and the conclusions (including a careful scrutiny of the methodology) is indicative of either limitations in cognitive function or deliberate ignorance. Or both.

I add, also, that I only point this out since you've yet to offer any rational evaluation of the data but, rather, choose to engage in argumentum ad hominem regarding the character of the researcher. I wouldn't make the accusation here, since we aren't expected to adhere to professional academic standards, but at an academic conference this would earn you an accusation of intellectual cowardice: too afraid of the data and it's conclusions to deal with it directly resorting instead to straw man arguments that are easier to tear down and ad hominem attacks on the researcher to cloud the issue.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Atheists are subjected to discrimation?

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:43 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.