What secular civil liberties are denied to atheists, agnostics, skeptics or the irreligious?

[pinto]

Specifically I'm speaking in US terms, i.e the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment seems most pertinent. I'm an ardent supporter of the separation clause - yet see no civil rights impact on atheists, agnostics, skeptics or the irreligious. If anything I think the clause supports our common stands on the intrusion of religion in political and legislative actions. This is ripe common ground for a coalition of disparate groups to stem that tide. ~ pinto

First Amendment

The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. Initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by Congress, and many of its provisions were interpreted more narrowly than they are today.[70]

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute.[70] Speech rights were expanded significantly in a series of 20th- and 21st-century court decisions that protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech; these rulings also defined a series of exceptions to First Amendment protections. The Supreme Court overturned English common law precedent to increase the burden of proof for defamation and libel suits, most notably in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).[71] Commercial speech is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech, and is therefore subject to greater regulation.[70]

The Free Press Clause protects publication of information and opinions, and applies to a wide variety of media. In Near v. Minnesota (1931)[72] and New York Times v. United States (1971),[73] the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected against prior restraint—pre-publication censorship—in almost all cases. The Petition Clause protects the right to petition all branches and agencies of government for action. In addition to the right of assembly guaranteed by this clause, the Court has also ruled that the amendment implicitly protects freedom of association.[70]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Application

[Manifestor_of_Light]

1. Seven states ban atheists from holding public office.

I understand that's state law, not federal.

These seven states are: Texas, Maryland, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina.


http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/uakmz/7_states_which_ban_atheists_from_holding_public/

Another source:
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/184232/these-7-states-ban-atheists-from-holding-public-office/

Federal case invalidating state law: Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488
I'm not sure of the practical effect in those states.

[pinto]

2. Ah geez. I didn't know that. Have any been challenged in court? Are they still current?

Seems patently unconstitutional.

[struggle4progress]

6. Such bans have been unenforceable since the Supreme Court's Torcaso v. Watkins ruling in 1961

[pinto]

8. Thanks for the input.

[eqfan592]

13. Except that hasn't stopped some states from trying.

As recently as 2008 in fact, an atheist faced a court battle to hold public office in the US based on one of these laws. So in spite of their obvious unconstitutionality, they are still a problem.

[struggle4progress]

16. Gotta link?

[eqfan592]

19. Sorry, i was mistaken some.

The year was actually 2009, and it wasn't a court battle but a petition.
http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2012-05-unelectable-atheists-us-states-that-prohibit-godless

[struggle4progress]

22. The Bothwell case doesn't really make your desired point. Bothwell was elected 3 Nov 09

by coming in third in a six way city council race, and he was sworn into office in early Dec 09, after which local personality H.K. Edgerton made noises about taking the city to court. But Edgerton's blather needn't be taken seriously: he is a batshizz-crazy black neoconfederate attention-whore, who somehow once briefly became the local NAACP chapter president before the state NAACP quickly took over the chapter and removed him



Bothwell was re-elected 5 Nov 13, again coming in third in a six way city council race, so he's got another four years on the council

[eqfan592]

29. Given that my desired point was that these laws are still giving atheists headaches...

...even tho they are clearly unconstitutional isn't invalidated by the level of crazy of one of the headache givers.

[struggle4progress]

31. "That hasn't stopped some states from trying," you wrote in #13. The example you finally gave in #19

seems to be based on little more than the fact that, after Cecil Bothwell was sworn in, a certifiable black neoconfederate lunatic blowhard (with no connection whatsoever to the current state, though he seems to have a certain fondness for NC as a slave state) managed to garner a few days press coverage by threatening to launch a court case about it -- which, of course, he never did because any lawyer who took such a case would have ended up eating the costs of getting spanked in court -- though that hasn't kept this now-old local news story from periodically re-emerging from the innertube gossip mills

[eqfan592]

32. lol, typical.

Bye, s4p. One too many bs posts for me to have any desire to converse with you any longer.

Welcome to the dustbin yourself.

[struggle4progress]

33. Have a nice trip!

[struggle4progress]

9. I'm not an attorney, but my understanding of the practical effect of Torcaso is this:

If any government entity insists on a religious test for holding any public office, then they will lose on that issue when dragged into court. The 14th Amendment makes clear that the rights of US citizens are not to be abridged by the states, and one right is "free exercise" of religion, which means no government can compel any religious view. Torcaso answers clearly the question of how vague a profession of religious view the state can compel -- and the answer is zip! nil! nothing!

Now you will, indeed, from time to time, encounter some bobble-headed bubble-brain, here and there, who gets all worked up about such an inactivated clause in a state law or a state constitution, and decides he/she will make every effort not to allow an atheist to hold a public office the atheist has been duly appointed to or duly elected to, or won't hire the only applicant for a job because the applicant turns out to be an atheist. And sometimes Mr/Ms Bobble Bubble has a town or county attorney who somehow actually passed the bar without knowing jackshizz. I expect that could be a pain-in-the-ass -- but in court, they're still going to lose, and pretty quickly I expect, provided you have a nice clean straightforward case. And since lots of people know this, cooler heads will prevail and there's almost no real chance of wasting time in court

By nice clean straightforward case, I mean there isn't something else stupid gumming up the "free exercise" narrative. If somebody applies for a (say) a public payroll job, involving regular contact with the public, and in the interview is asked if they're looking forward to Christmas, yells Fuck Christmas! I am so fucking tired of your fucking idiotic Christmas bullshit! and then doesn't get the job and wants to sue the town for discriminating against atheists, the circumstances may not lend themselves to a nice clean straightforward interpretation of heavy-handed interference with "free exercise"

[skepticscott]

3. What secular civil liberties are denied under the law

to women..or blacks...or Jews..or Catholics? None, of course. Everything is hunky-dory.

[pinto]

4. Not sure I get your point. Manifestor's post above was informative.

[skepticscott]

12. I might have asked the same about your OP

Seems like little more than shit-stirring.

[pinto]

17. I meant it as a simple query. Honestly. Where's the discrimination? I'm familiar with the issue -

Discrimination. Another poster provided some examples I was unaware of. That's why I asked. And I appreciate that.

Didn't mean to stir up anything. Just wanted some input.

[skepticscott]

18. Except that's not what you asked

You framed the question as if denial of civil liberties under the law were the only form of discrimination worth discussing, and that if those couldn't be cited, atheists should just STFU.

After 100,000 posts, disingenuousness and feigned naïveté don't become you.

[pinto]

23. Probably framed the query too narrowly. The Bill of Rights is what came to mind initially.

I've seen other broader contexts mentioned here. Ones I didn't consider before I posted. Many of those I can relate to.

Not disingenuous but yeah, naive on my part. I know one clearly self-defined atheist. She celebrates Christmas secularly, has gone to midnight mass with me, has a live and let live attitude. One thing we both feel strongly about is the intrusion of religion of any sort into politics and the public sector, i.e. public schools. That's sort of the basis of any discussions we have about religion.

I've never told her to just STFU, fwiw.

[pokerfan]

5. Why are atheists so angry?

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

[pinto]

7. She makes some good points.

I think the crux of the discussions (pun intended) ought not be about god / no god, religion good / not good, atheism good / not good. Those are circular roundabouts.

We all should move beyond that format, imo.

[struggle4progress]

10. We all get good at doing what we practice doing. And it seems Greta Christina practices

being angry, so perhaps she's getting good at it. Most of the time, I myself don't find it a very useful skill.

[pokerfan]

11. She's so strident!

Just shut up already!

[struggle4progress]

15. Those who want to know what I actually said can read my post, I suppose

[rug]

27. Why are some people so eager to be told to shut up?

[struggle4progress]

30. Dunno, but my first guess might be that it is an exercise to help one practice anger

[uriel1972]

14. Having the rights or being able to exercise those rights...

They are two very different things.

[pinto]

24. Good point.

Agree.

[cbayer]

20. Other than the unenforceable laws discussed above, I don't think there is any formal denial of right

but I do think people without religious affiliation face prejudice and even outright bigotry in some areas of the country.

It's still almost impossible to get elected. In many communities, lack of church affiliation may exclude you from activities that are critical for businesses. There are still some "preachers" foaming at the mouth while equating atheists with satanists, etc.

Then there is the rather constant injection of religion into places where it shouldn't be. Raising a child in a non-believing household could be very difficult in some areas, and that child might be subjected to mistreatment.

I think that's changing, though, and I think that there will be "normalization" of atheism fairly rapidly.

[pinto]

25. Good points. I think it is changing as well. Glacially perhaps.

Didn't consider the business contact situation. I can see that though, it makes sense in a personal real world context.

I never figured I'd see out gays elected to public office, but there are now quite a few at all levels of government.

I don't follow the extremist preachers much but get the sense they have less impact at the ballot box as they once had. In some ways I think "normalization" is the growing trend, across the board.

[cbayer]

26. Agree that the audience for the extremist preachers seems to

be getting smaller.

At least we can hope.

There are similarities between the stages that the GLBT community went through and what the atheist community seems to be going through.

I foresee a time when someones religion or lack of religion makes little difference.

Again, at least we can hope.

[edhopper]

21. Has there been any claim

of federal or constitutional discrimination?
Or do atheists see societal discrimination?

Two very different things. This post has a strawman quality to it.

[LostOne4Ever]

28. How about this?

http://www.heraldbulletin.com/crime/x1897758594/Father-says-his-faith-cost-his-custody

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/general_conversation_introductions_and_humor/9336

Or how about this?

http://www.alternet.org/belief/atheist-jailed-when-he-wouldnt-participate-religious-parole-program-now-seeks-compensation

Or this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/boy-scouts-atheists-policy_n_2576493.html


Here is a nice list:

http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/discrimination-against-atheists/

[struggle4progress]

34. I wonder how many different folk named "Craig Scarberry" live in Anderson IN

One "Craig Scarberry" of Anderson IN sued Chicago IL in 2006 for allegedly abridging his right to hand out Bible tracts in public areas; I don't know how that case turned out

Then there's a "Craig Scarberry" of Anderson IN who said he used to be a Christian but changed to atheist or agnostic and lost his 2010 child custody fight as a result; I think the Indiana Court of Appeals in June 2011 reversed the custody order and returned the children to joint custody

I'm wondering if this is the same guy and if maybe he doesn't just practice being a major pain-in-the-butt to everybody: if it is the same dude, I might prefer to examine the cases in detail before reaching any conclusions

[LostOne4Ever]

35. Does it matter if its the same dude?

It was still wrong. Though I have my doubts that an agnostic would be a part of repent america. Either way, I fail to see its relevance to the issue at hand.

I'm pretty sure his case was overturned, but that does not change the fact that it happens, did happen, and will happen again in the future. Just because this one was overturned there does not mean there are not cases of this happening in other states that don't over turn the decision.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/03/30/atheists-discriminated-against-in-child-custody-cases.htm

[struggle4progress]

36. If it's the same guy, then it might suggest that he has a habit of being a big PITA

no matter what side of an issue he's on -- and that's not going to win points with a judge. And if it's the same guy, and he does have a habit of being a big PITA, then one might wonder whether his version of events is the whole story or whether he's just once again being a big PITA: it's not at all uncommon to find that the alleged injustices, which regularly inflame the internet, seem rather more complicated when one obtains more facts

[struggle4progress]

37. With respect to the other cases listed in your link, I would simply say that it may be inappropriate

to form much of an opinion regarding a case without knowing the particulars

I chose one at random and looked at it: Sharrow v. Davis. Here's a pdf link to the Appeals Court Decision. Religion is mentioned in one paragraph, among other factors:

Concerning factor (b) (the capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child in his or her religion or creed, if any), the evidence showed that both parties had the capacity and disposition to provide the child with love and affection, but that defendant was more available when plaintiff was working, because she worked at home. Both parents were willing and able to continue the child’s education. Although plaintiff appeared to be more concerned with academic achievement than defendant, defendant found a sound preschool program that fit her needs, whereas plaintiff wanted defendant to drive the four-year-old child from Marine City to Algonac everyday to attend a more intensive program. With regard to religion, plaintiff never attended church and his older children were not baptized. Plaintiff felt they should experience many religions and choose one when they were older. Although defendant did not attend church regularly, she attended periodically and would take all of the children with her. Given this evidence, the trial court’s finding that defendant prevailed on this factor is not against the great weight of the evidence.

Note that there are approximately a dozen factors (a)-(l) to be considered, and that continuing a child's religious upbringing (if any) is listed as only one of several matters considered in the particular factor (b):

... the trial court found that the parties were equal with regard to factors (a), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (k), and (l), and that factors (b), (d), and (j) each favored defendant. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court’s findings that factors (d), (e) and (j) each favored defendant, and that the parties were equal with regard to factors (b) and (c), are against the great weight of the evidence. We disagree

Thus in this particular case, religion was not the sole determinative issue in the custody decision, nor does it seem to have been the sole determinative issue in the determination that the mother, rather than the father, was favored in factor (b) among the dozen factors