FFRF gets its panties in a twist

[Seth]

Even better, the number of murders by governments with purportedly religious leaders since the beginning of human history is quite impressive. Seth lives in a glass house.

And what is that number, pray tell, and what are your sources?

[Seth]

What we do know for a fact is that atheism is at the root of 100 million deaths at the hands of Communists.

Incorrect. Regimes like Stalin's and Mao's were not friendly towards religions, but that in itself was not the root cause of their atrocities.

I said that it was "at the root" not the "root cause." I am correct. Stalin and Mao were not "not friendly" towards religion, they were actively and implacably hostile, suppressing religion with the most brutal methods, as per Marx's instructions.

The problems with their systems is actually the same as the ones which created atrocities during the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.: it's a problem of dogma. The insistence of one set of intolerant beliefs to the detriment of all opposition.

That's true enough.

Atheism does not qualify, since there is no system of beliefs. Atheism is nothing more than not following any particular religious tenets. There is no dogma of atheism any more than "off" is just another channel on your television.

I knew someone would come up with this canard. Thanks. Once again, for the umpteenth time, there is more than one kind of atheism. There is implicit atheism, which is the simple "lack of belief in gods" which exists only when the individual has either had no exposure whatsoever to theistic concepts or is mentally incapable of receiving and processing information about theistic concepts and claims (basically infant, very young children and mental defectives) and then there is explicit atheism, which exists whenever the individual has been exposed to theistic concepts and claims and has weighed that information and made a decision regarding the truth value of the claims. This includes absolutely everyone in this forum and indeed all but the mentally defective adults who are so grossly impaired as to be incapable of rational thought and infants, because every other atheist has been exposed to and has actively rejected the claims of theism.

Within this large group of explicit atheists there are many sub-groups that all hold some beliefs and engage in some practices related to religion and theism. Many simply actively disbelieve in God but don't do more or believe more than that it's silly to believe in God.

However, there is also a large contingent of atheists who go far beyond a simple disbelief. These atheists include secular activists, anti-theists, religion haters and everyone who takes objection to the existence of religion and theism and makes it a priority in their life to opine on the subject and oppose the influence of religion and theism in society. These atheists are practicing religion and can justifiably be labeled "Atheists" and members of an anti-theistic religion that has a large and complex set of beliefs and practices focused around anti-theism and opposition to the existence and influence of religion and theism on society and on their lives. That subset of atheists, the religious Atheists, comprises most of the people in this forum and at places like RDF and RatSkep.

Within that general subset of religious Atheists, there is, as is seen in most religious groups, a smaller subset of marginally-sane and clearly deranged radical, militant Atheists who actively attack religion and theism with every bit as much religious fervor as those whom they routinely revile and disparage.

So no, you're wrong, atheism is much, much more than "not following any particular religious tenets."

Your mistake is, as is quite usual among Atheists, the inability to distinguish between theism and religion. Religion is how you practice what you believe in, and theism (or anti-theism) is what you believe.

The "dogma" of radical, militant religious Atheism is seen here in this forum with mind-numbing regularity.

[Coito ergo sum]

But wait, atheism is not a religion, right? So, how can anyone engage in unlawful "religious discrimination" against an atheist?

For the purposes of federal discrimination laws, atheism is protected as much as any religion. I.e. someone discriminating in hiring or firing based on "religion" or "lack of religion" is still violating the law.

I think in Massachusetts a retail store can't discriminate based on race, color, religion, etc. and that would include lack of religion or atheism.

Gaylor goes on to whine:

“We have basic civil rights standards in our society. A business can‘t shun you because you’re an atheist,” the atheist leader said. “You do not have the right to refuse to do business with someone based on categories and that includes religion. It‘s as if they said ’I will not deliver to a black person.’”

Problem is, it's not illegal for a business to discriminate based on POLITICAL (or any other) belief. It's perfectly legal to refuse to serve Democrats, or Progressives or Communists...or atheists.

Atheism is included among "religious beliefs" though, not political beliefs. It's the same as saying you're discriminating based on someone not being a Christian and claiming that you're not discriminating based on religion. The EEOC and all State discrmination/civil rights agencies are very clear on that, and every high court addressing the issue has been very clear on that.

The Civil Rights Act says that everyone shall be entitled to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Since atheism is not a religion, according to every atheist I've ever debated the subject with, it does not fall under the protection of the Civil Rights Act.

It's not a religion, per se, but the word "religion" is very broad as it is used in discrimination laws, and includes lack of religion, and lack of belief in a religion or lack of belief in a god or gods.

You're free to make the argument that a narrower usage is appropriate, but your argument has been made and rejected in all 50 states and by the Supreme Court.

So, Gaylor, you're wrong, and people have every right to discriminate against and shun atheists, just like they can discriminate against and shun Communists or Marxists based on any category they choose OTHER THAN those specifically listed in the Civil Rights Act.

That, my dear, is called "freedom of (dis)association" and it's guaranteed by the First Amendment as a right.

No, Seth. You are wrong. The law is not what you say it is. You may advocate for a change in the law, but you're wrong now. She is right.

[Coito ergo sum]

Your mistake is, as is quite usual among Atheists, the inability to distinguish between theism and religion. Religion is how you practice what you believe in, and theism (or anti-theism) is what you believe.

The "dogma" of radical, militant religious Atheism is seen here in this forum with mind-numbing regularity.

Your mistake is the inability to distinguish between theism and religion. Theism is a religious belief in one god, and that god must intervene or interact in human affairs in some way. All religions in which there is one god are theistic religions. Polytheistic religions have multiple interventionist gods. Deism has one non-interventionist first cause of some kind. And, not all religions have a belief in god at all, and religions can be atheistic. Atheism is the disbelief in gods.

There is no "dogma" here - atheism was intended to be protected by the Civil Rights laws under the general rubric of discrimination based on religious belief, or creed, etc., because the lack of a creed is in a sense a kind of creed. And, it would be nonsensical to say that one can discriminate against a person because one does not have a religion but that people could discriminate against folks for having the wrong religion.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's Rhode Island General Law 11-24-2, not the CRA.

Depends wholly on the definition of religion. Not in the stupid pedantic what is or is not a religion sense, atheism for example may be a meta-belief, a belief about religion rather than a religious belief per se, but if the First Amendment and these laws that protect religion are to avoid being discriminatory then 'religion - religious belief' has to mean beliefs about religion as well. The UK has made it explicit by talking about religious belief or lack of it, this covers not just the non-religious but also the religious who could be discriminated against for their perceived lack of a specific religious belief (like not wearing a burka).

Wrong.

Rhode Island General Law 11-24-2.

"No person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement shall directly or indirectly refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person on account of race or color, religion, country of ancestral origin, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of that public space."

Note that "political belief or affiliation" is not included in the list.

Secularism, which is the basis of Ahlquist's legal claim against the school is not a religion or a religious belief. There are plenty of theists who are also Secularists who believe in the separation of church and state. Therefore, Secularist political activism such as Ahlquist's is not a religious matter, it's a secular political matter, and others may discriminate against her, or the FFRF as much as they like in opposition to those political beliefs and activist practices.

You're not correct in your interpretation of the law.

As the EEOC said, for example, it can be religious discrimination for an atheist employee to keep reiterating atheist beliefs to a religious person after being told to stop - that would be "religious harassment," even though atheism isn't a religion. And, atheists have to be accommodated, like being excused from religious invocations in the workplace, under religious discrimination laws.

Here is the EEOC compliance manual which describes how atheism is protected under federal discrimination law: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/threshold.html

Now, obviously, that's written in the context of employment, but it's the same argument, because the same verbiage is used. All states apply religion protections to atheism the same way in all contexts.

This may be another instance where you are arguing what you think the law should be. That's fine. But, if you're arguing about what the law "is" - then you're just flat out wrong.

[Seth]

@Seth

Well I take your point, but you could also make the argument that more people have died and been killed by democratic governments than by monarchical states and as such conclude democracy is evil. After all I'm sure if you tallied up the kill numbers for all the democratic states during the 20th century you'll find that the amount of people that died in their wars and concentration camps and genocides and ethnic cleansing is several magnitudes higher than those states with absolute monarchy. Therefore one should be more comfortable with an absolute divine ruler than a chosen government.

I imagine you're right in re "democratic governments" depending on how you define "democracy." Even Stalin's USSR was putatively "democratic." Our Founders recognized the evil of democracy, which is why they leashed it and chained it and caged it in so many ways with our Constitution and laws, so as to keep a dangerous and ravening beast under careful control, lest it break free and manifest itself as the tyranny of the majority, as it always does when not carefully restrained.

I've heard the rest of your argument before. Certainly Leo Strauss and others have promoted religion as being the noble lie that literally binds a society together and such be used to control it. That argument is a convincing one in so far as without some commonality to guide it society might dissipate into increasingly fragmented self governing territories.

Yup. It's hardly a novel concept. Religion and government have always been closely intertwined because of the need for governance to promote societal order and peace and the enormously powerful effects and memes of religion in controlling human behavior. Judaic religious dietary law was pretty clearly concocted by some really smart people and turned into a religious commandment in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of the Jewish culture against food-borne disease. That's one of the most essential and fundamental aspects of government and one might rightly say that secular government evolved from religious governance, which came into existence very, very early in mankind's history with shamans and tribal beliefs.

I've long believed that religion is an evolved behavior in humans, and it persists precisely because of it's ability to both guide human behavior in evolutionarily beneficial ways and because it provides something that many humans seem to need in their lives. Were it as universally useless and evil as Atheists like to claim, it would have long ago disappeared as a human behavioral pattern.

Am I wrong or is that not kind of your goal?

Indeed. Peace and harmony in society are highly desirable and those behaviors which contribute to stability are generally useful and ought to be preserved.

So really you should be on the side of the Atheists (with the capital A) because while they may well be amoral murderous bastards, without religion binding society together and government co-opting its single moral code, society would develop more into something that libertarians would reap benefits from, no?

No, not at all. You are presenting a strawman image of Libertarianism, which is not the anarchic, amoral society that you falsely impute it is. Libertarianism supports fully the free exercise of religion, or not, because Libertarianism does not presume to interfere in other people's lives or how they live them so long as they do not initiate force or fraud on others as a part of their lifestyle. This is not anarchy or amorality, indeed Libertarianism depends on strong moral and ethical behavior as a fundamental presumption of an adult, well-formed personality. One does not make contracts with sociopaths because one cannot depend on sociopaths to keep their word and uphold there contractual obligations. Trust and ethical behavior are essential to Libertarianism because when adults with well-formed personalities act in moral and ethical ways, less governance is required in the society, and less governance is always better than more governance in any society, if it can be achieved by voluntary cooperation, contract and ethical and moral strength.

Because most theistic religious dogma calls for moral and ethical behavior, at least between members of the religion (this is true of Islam as much as it is Christianity), religion is a strong motivator to moral and ethical behavior, which Libetarianism supports. Libertarianism would not support conflict or immoral or unethical behavior between competing religions or sects however, as that involves the initiation of force and fraud. But so long as the religion supports the peaceable exercise of faith and moral and ethical obedience to the principles of Libertarianism, which include individual liberty and freedom of contract, Libertarianism is on the side of religion, not atheism or anarchy.

This is not to say that Libertarianism is opposed to atheism however, so long as the practice of atheism, whatever that might be, comports with the principles of Libertarianism.

That being said, radical militant religious Atheism often involves the initiation of force and/or fraud on others, so it cannot be supported by Libertarianism, any more that Libertarianism supports radical militant Islam or Christianity in their quest to impose religious beliefs on others.

[Seth]

But wait, atheism is not a religion, right? So, how can anyone engage in unlawful "religious discrimination" against an atheist?

For the purposes of federal discrimination laws, atheism is protected as much as any religion. I.e. someone discriminating in hiring or firing based on "religion" or "lack of religion" is still violating the law.

I think in Massachusetts a retail store can't discriminate based on race, color, religion, etc. and that would include lack of religion or atheism.

Yup. But political discrimination is permissible.

Gaylor goes on to whine:

“We have basic civil rights standards in our society. A business can‘t shun you because you’re an atheist,” the atheist leader said. “You do not have the right to refuse to do business with someone based on categories and that includes religion. It‘s as if they said ’I will not deliver to a black person.’”

Problem is, it's not illegal for a business to discriminate based on POLITICAL (or any other) belief. It's perfectly legal to refuse to serve Democrats, or Progressives or Communists...or atheists.

Atheism is included among "religious beliefs" though, not political beliefs. It's the same as saying you're discriminating based on someone not being a Christian and claiming that you're not discriminating based on religion. The EEOC and all State discrmination/civil rights agencies are very clear on that, and every high court addressing the issue has been very clear on that.

She wasn't discriminated against because of her religion or lack thereof, she was discriminated against because of her political activism. Secularism, which is the exclusion of religion from government, and is the basis of her First Amendment Establishment Clause claim in re the banner, is not a religious activity, it is a secular political activity invoking secular political law. Therefore it is perfectly lawful to discriminate against her because of her POLITICAL beliefs.

The Civil Rights Act says that everyone shall be entitled to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Since atheism is not a religion, according to every atheist I've ever debated the subject with, it does not fall under the protection of the Civil Rights Act.

It's not a religion, per se, but the word "religion" is very broad as it is used in discrimination laws, and includes lack of religion, and lack of belief in a religion or lack of belief in a god or gods.

You're free to make the argument that a narrower usage is appropriate, but your argument has been made and rejected in all 50 states and by the Supreme Court.

I'm not making that argument AT ALL. I'm talking about her, and the FFRF's Secularist political activism, not their atheistic beliefs. Discrimination based on political belief is NOT protected.

So, Gaylor, you're wrong, and people have every right to discriminate against and shun atheists, just like they can discriminate against and shun Communists or Marxists based on any category they choose OTHER THAN those specifically listed in the Civil Rights Act.

That, my dear, is called "freedom of (dis)association" and it's guaranteed by the First Amendment as a right.

No, Seth. You are wrong. The law is not what you say it is. You may advocate for a change in the law, but you're wrong now. She is right.

No, you're wrong, and the law is what I say it is. You simply refuse to acknowledge the distinction between discriminating "because" someone is an atheist and discriminating based on political beliefs and activism, which is what she was engaged in.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Florists - Meh, who the fuck needs 'em anyway?

[Seth]

Your mistake is, as is quite usual among Atheists, the inability to distinguish between theism and religion. Religion is how you practice what you believe in, and theism (or anti-theism) is what you believe.

The "dogma" of radical, militant religious Atheism is seen here in this forum with mind-numbing regularity.

Your mistake is the inability to distinguish between theism and religion. Theism is a religious belief in one god, and that god must intervene or interact in human affairs in some way. All religions in which there is one god are theistic religions. Polytheistic religions have multiple interventionist gods. Deism has one non-interventionist first cause of some kind. And, not all religions have a belief in god at all, and religions can be atheistic. Atheism is the disbelief in gods.

Implicit atheism is simply the disbelief in gods. Explicit atheism is very often much, much more than that and can, and frequently does, comprise a religion all its own, with its own set of beliefs and practices associated with opposing theism. It might be called "anti-theism" but it's more convenient to simply call it big-"A" Atheism.

There is no "dogma" here - atheism was intended to be protected by the Civil Rights laws under the general rubric of discrimination based on religious belief, or creed, etc., because the lack of a creed is in a sense a kind of creed. And, it would be nonsensical to say that one can discriminate against a person because one does not have a religion but that people could discriminate against folks for having the wrong religion.

Indeed. But not relevant because the complaint by the girl and the objections of the FFRF are not based in religion or irreligion, they are based in secular political beliefs regarding the Constitution and the First Amendment. That makes them political activists, and one can discriminate against political activists to one's heart's content.

[Seth]

Seems to me that the girl in question was discriminated against on grounds of religious belief...The florist's religious belief, that is.

By the logic employed here it would seem that it would be an offence to, say, not serve someone because they're black but legal to deny service to anyone who isn't white.


.........I think.

Nope. It's about being able to discriminate based on a customer's political beliefs and expressions. If you're a member of the Occupy movement and you come into my store wearing an Occupy tee-shirt (or a Che tee-shirt for that matter) I may lawfully conclude that you are a political activist holding a political belief that I find offensive and I may exclude you from my store and refuse to serve you.

If you're an Orthodox Jew dressed in typical Orthodox garb with a beard and sidelocks, I cannot discriminate against you because of your religious garb, even if it doesn't fit with my image for my customers, but if you're carrying an Occupy sign, I can exclude you based on your political affiliation or expression, even if you're wearing Orthodox Judaic garb.

If the customer is black, but is wearing Black Panther garb, he can be excluded not because of his race, but because of his political affiliation and garb and it's lawful, just as it's lawful to exclude outlaw bikers based on their "colors."

The reason WHY one discriminates is important, and all the florists need to do is say "it was for safety reasons" which is a legitimate business decision, or "I don't like her political activism" or "I don't support the secular political objectives of the FFRF" and the discrimination is completely lawful.

[Seth]

Atheism is orders of magnitude more dangerous to human life than religion will ever be. This is in no small part due to the fact that atheists have no moral compass because they have no fear of judgment for their evil and selfish acts at the hands of a greater power.

Dis is insane in da membrane.

And its bigotry is quite ironic from this poster.

But completely unsurprising.

Or, a somewhat obvious bit of trolling.

Well, yeah, of course.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

...But the florist made a decision to discriminate based on religious grounds, no?

[Seth]

...But the florist made a decision to discriminate based on religious grounds, no?

Evidently not. At least one of them claims it was a matter of safety for their staff. I don't know that any of them explicitly stated it was because she was an Atheist.

People here are making presumptions about the motivations of the various florists that may be unwarranted. I'm pointing out (and hopefully the florists will see my blog) that if they are asked, all they need to say is "I disagree with the political activism of the FFRF and refuse to do business with them based on their secular political agenda." This will frustrate the complaint that the FFRF is trying to make quite nicely. And so long as they don't shoot their mouths off about discriminating based on atheism, they will walk away clean.

This is a tactic that I'm putting out there for anyone to use against the FFRF if they want to shun the organization (or any other activist secular organization for that matter) and refuse to do business with it that will achieve the objective of pissing the FFRF nitwits off while remaining strictly legal.

Live by the letter of the law, die by the letter of the law.

[Gallstones]

Seth, how can you be a Tolerist while generalizing and being so bigoted and intolerant towards non believers?

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Hmmm...The way I read it is that certain florists wouldn't deliver because they feared some kind of reprisal. Doesn't say from whom but I think it's pretty clear that 'religious nutters' are what is meant.