Neither are religious people.

Both sides can be dumb. Both sides can be hateful. Both sides can be bigoted.

Neither side is oppressed in any meaningful sense of the word. Theists or atheists who feel "oppressed" - even at a relatively minor level - seriously need to find a sense of proportion. It's understandable why both feel this way, however. Atheism is a growing force in society, and theists, being part of the status quo, feel understandably threatened by this changing force. Unfortunately, the reaction by theists makes atheists feel threatened and encourages a sort of group psychology.

It's essentially turning atheism into an ideology or - I hesitantly say - a dogma, when really atheism is a position completely lacking content. It's a repudiation of something, not an affirmation. Nonetheless, oppression is only really meaningful when it's institutionalised. To think atheists or theists are being oppressed in the modern Western world is a grossly offensive use of the word.

Just because somebody's a fucΒ­king dick to you, it doesn't mean you are being oppressed. Just because somebody will fire you because of it, it doesn't mean you are being oppressed. Just because your group can't reliably get into office, it doesn't mean you are being oppressed.

/rant

Neither are religious people.

Both sides can be dumb. Both sides can be hateful. Both sides can be bigoted.

Agreed 100%.

being kicked out of the house and disowned if they are not religious

That's not oppression. Just shitty parenting.

I'm not denying the sheer horror of being disowned for not believing in God - or being sent to a camp to be "cured" of homosexuality, or whatever - I'm merely saying to call it oppression is a gross misuse of the word and completely fails to capture the scale of the problem.

When atheists are rounded up into camps, forced to wear insignia or are killed in the streets by roving gangs of The Police of Vice and Virtue then you can claim oppression. It works the other way with the religious as well.

It's just plain, horrible bigotry and the sooner we stop mis-characterising social phenomena as if they were monolithic and co-ordinated forces the sooner we can realise it isn't a fight for anybody's freedom.

Quote from: PSU on October 13, 2014, 11:48:24 AM

Quote from: Vincent Adultman on October 13, 2014, 11:46:28 AM

I disagree. In the US, at least, teens and young adults face a very real consequence of being kicked out of the house and disowned if they are not religious. That's my biggest concern.

And kids can get kicked out of their house for drinking, doing bad in school, or having a boyfriend too. Whats your point?

Um, because those are bad things to do [mostly]. Not sharing the beliefs of your family is entirely inconsequential to them. You can't force someone to believe something, especially something like faith-based religion. Not to mention kicking out your own child isn't exactly Christ-like, either.

I agree with you. I mean throwing your child out because of his faith (or lack of) isn't good. But it doesn't happen any more than throwing a child out for any other reason.

Until the NC constitution no longer says I cannot hold public office, yes, we are oppressed.

Until the NC constitution no longer says I cannot hold public office, yes, we are oppressed.

I'll concede specifically political oppression, there. Only in the places where that law still holds.

Quote from: RustingFloor on October 13, 2014, 12:04:33 PM

Until the NC constitution no longer says I cannot hold public office, yes, we are oppressed.

So they only want to elect upstanding citizens and not edgy teenagers?

You know that's a silly thing to say.

Quote from: PSU on October 13, 2014, 12:08:11 PM

Quote from: RustingFloor on October 13, 2014, 12:04:33 PM

Until the NC constitution no longer says I cannot hold public office, yes, we are oppressed.

So they only want to elect upstanding citizens and not edgy teenagers?

You know that's a silly thing to say.

Yeah it was a joke.

They should be able to run for office. Just don't be upset when someone slams the door in your face for being an atheist.

Yet, atheists sometimes can't get a public position.

If people won't vote for you because you're an atheist, that's their prerogative.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 13, 2014, 03:54:29 PM

If people won't vote for you because you're an atheist, that's their prerogative.

It's not about voting, it's about not being allowed to run at all.

As Turkey noted, those laws were made defunct by the Supreme Court.

I think in the mid 60s actually.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 13, 2014, 04:01:26 PM

As Turkey noted, those laws were made defunct by the Supreme Court.

I think in the mid 60s actually.

You're making the assumption government has ever cared about laws.

Therefore it should stand that your initial allegation of legal barriers for atheists doesn't hold.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 13, 2014, 04:06:50 PM

Therefore it should stand that your initial allegation of legal barriers for atheists doesn't hold.

Except the fact that it still happens.

lol no

Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 13, 2014, 04:06:50 PM

Therefore it should stand that your initial allegation of legal barriers for atheists doesn't hold.

Except the fact that it still happens.

Source?

http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2012-05-unelectable-atheists-us-states-that-prohibit-godless

Those laws were struck down over 50 years ago in Torcaso v. Watkins.