Do aetheists have more rights than christians

I still think back to the removal of the ten commandments from oklahoma capitol building because it offended aetheists and a football team caught up in controversy due to praying on the field during a high school game.These are only two examples.I am not trying to promote christianity.I just want to know whats next to be taken away to make sure everybody feels comfortable.If thats the case we will end up living inside a steal cage.It's not about tolerating each other it's about identitifying with one another no matter how each of us looks,how rich or poor,the way we walk or how we talk,it's not about what part of the country we come from it's about seeing at least one commonality with each other.live and let live.~ignorance is bli~~

 

Why does Christianity need government endorsement?

 

Probably because all religions are not represented equally, all religions are not represented by Christianity. We're a mostly Christian country, but we're a citizenry composed of people from many cultures and belief systems. We can't have a system that favors one type of belief system over another, nor one that supports one and not another, or that places belief ahead of non-belief within our society. Why have the 10 commandments and not a page from the Koran? Why not a Buddah? Or a menorah instead of a cross? Or why have any religious object instead of none in order to maintain equality?

Commonality doesn't exist if a large part of a population isn't common in belief. Nearly 23% in the US identify as non affiliated, agnostic or atheist, with another 5.9% non-Christian religious. That's nearly 1/3 of the population, roughly 95 million people, that don't share commonality, at least religiously. http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

 

You did't name any rights that atheist have that Christians don't have - you only named a few "extras" the Christians had enjoyed
for years that they no longer enjoy in public spaces.

It really never bothered me that students could pray or that
the ten commandments could be displayed on public property - but if your going to allow one religion to do so, then, technically all
religions should be allowed to do so, and that would probably get messy and tick off Christians more than make them happy.

 

To answer your title question; No, everyone has exactly the same rights and responsibilities. Separation of church and state applies to everyone, regardless of their religion (some religions can be atheistic of course) or lack thereof (which includes non-religious theists).

The examples you give weren’t really about “making people comfortable” but more about equal application of the long established laws of the land. If anything the pattern is for a minority of Christians seeking special exceptions to general laws because of their religious beliefs and its history in America. It should be remembered that the vast, vast majority of people go about their daily lives being religious or not, without any kind of difficulty, conflict or controversy. Someone generally has to put in some effort to cause any kind of problem in this area (which I fear is often the point).

 

You are right.I was in no way endorsing christianity.In fact i respect most peoples beliefs and am not the least bit offended by most peoples opinions.I just don't understand why people make a big deal and waste time getting rid of things that harm them in no way.The ten commandments only exist for self preservation,people praying peacefully and in a non-confrontational manner should never be a subject of controversy.We don't live in a third world country where prayer can get you killed.We do however live in a country where a man gets an award for being courageous because he became a woman.

 

Militant Atheism is very much a US drive. I am in Europe. i dont believe in God. This never caused me to take issue with Christians. Most people I know are Christians and they will welcome me back to the church and forgive my lack of faith anytime, wjhich in itself is beautiful. In USA there is a grudge match between believers and non-believers. It is silly. An atheist is not someone who "knows" there is no God. He is someone who has decided there is not. An agnostic has not decided. Neither of them (nor any of the religious) know so to be militant is ricidilous.

 

you need to read up on the separation of church and state thing

 

Thank you!You understood my point.My end point was not meant to offend anyone it just really shows me how backwards we are becoming as a nation and dare i say it as a world.My relationship with God is personal and one not to be forced on anyone.Just like it's anyones personal choice not to take the ten comnandments seriously it was just a display that wasn't harming anyone.I wonder how long before the pledge of allegiance is changed.I've learned to look at what appears to be subtle changes and see the big picture.Religious freedom is religious freedom,even if you chose not to have a religion.

 

I think you are onto something. "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is not well represented in court rulings.

 

If it’s so innocuous, why aren’t you asking why people make such a big deal and waste time putting up the monuments in public buildings in the first place? They’re clearly intended to have some kind of impact or influence or they wouldn’t bother doing it in the first place and there are very good reasons why religion (any religion) shouldn’t exert any kind of undue influence on government or judiciary.

 

For people who believe atheists have more rights than Christians, this might make interesting reading. Not every point here is a big deal, but some are.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/atheists-discrimination_n_4413593.html?section=australia

Coming from a nation that has had at least 4 atheist or agnostic Prime Ministers (including our greatest PM) I find it interesting that there are so few declared atheists in elected office in America. Also concerning that a number of states still have enforceable laws banning atheists from office; atheists can be forced to swear to God to graduate; atheism can be used against parents in custody disputes and a few others besides.

Christians like to imagine themselves oppressed because they no longer enjoy the untrammelled privileges they once did. That doesn't necessarily mean they are suffering discrimination.

 

it was moved to private property where it should of been all along, there was no excuse for republicans trying to push Biblical\Sharia law on the people

 

we believe religious freedom can not truly exist under a theocracy, religious freedom is worth fighting for

 

are Baptist ministers now atheists

seems even some Christians could see this was wrong.....

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...-commandments-monument-from-the-state-capitol

'"Originally authorized by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2009, the privately funded monument has been a lightning rod for controversy since it was erected in 2012, prompting a lawsuit from Bruce Prescott, a Baptist minister from Norman who complained it violated the state constitution."

.

 

But you never had a right to put the Ten Commandments on a government building in the first place, so you've lost nothing.

 

You've just committed a fallacy called a red herring. Your OP was about official endorsement of religion by government entities, not merely about opinions. An opinion is not the same thing as a concrete religious idol on a government building. Our government is not supposed to favor one religion over another and by installing religious adornments on public property, government does precisely that thing it's not allowed to do.

Like same-sex marriage, for example?

Just keep the religious adornments off government property and there's no controversy.

You've just made a point against your own argument.

Which is completely irrelevant to your position, not to mention hypocritical.

 

I don't know where you live, but here in America our government may not favor or endorse any religion. We fought a whole war against the British crown over that. And I hasten to add, theists are people who don't "know" there is a god(s), they have merely decided there is.

 

This statement is full of contradictions, but can you see how the government putting a religious adornment on a government building could exactly constitute "forcing your relationship with God" on other people? Religious freedom means the government may not interfere with your religious practice, require you to practice a certain religion, or even endorse (by adorning its buildings, for example), a particular brand of religious faith.

 

We are not in disagrement on what you said. Yes your founding fathers were way ahead of their time and your bill of rights is the envy of the western word. I believe despite this (and not because of it) there is clearly a more militant approach by atheists in the USA. It sickens us European Atheists who have found a welcome space in the the secular belief spectrum after centuries of having to be secretive.

 

I just dont feel having a display in a government building is forcing anything on anyone.Free will if you are absolutely against people not killing,disrespecting their neighbors,cheating wives and husbands,stealing etc.then i guess it would be offensive to someone.I dont understand how a harmless display is forcing anything on anyone.I haven't heard of people being ~openly~killed or arrested for not being a christian other than back in the crusades.As i said im not trying to promote organized religion I dont participate in it,im not an aetheist either but,right is right and wrong is wrong.We bith right because its only opinions.just like the laws and constitution only stem from someones point of view and opinions.I live by spiritual laws which enable me to live by most natural laws.People are focused on the wrong things.They do things thinking their helping when they only add to and create more problems because their motives are self-centered

 

Your word salad notwithstanding, you are wrong. Government endorsement of religion can not exist in a society that values religious freedom. This is not a matter of opinion, it is simply a fact.

 

Well then we should probably let Muslims put a copy of the Koran in the Oklahoma capitol building and let the Buddhists chant at the high school football game since the First Amendment makes it illegal for the government to choose one religion over another.

 

Other peoples disbelief in God is being forced on those who believe in God.A person can choose to look away from a display that basically only spells out the basic laws in the country,you cant choose to look away from something that isnt there.Controversy over group prayer on a high school football field is an even bigger issue.how is it freedom of religion if you are banned from practicing it in a harmless non-confrontational way in certain places.no one is taking an aetheists right to not believe,just dont participate.

 

The government being neutral in regards to religion doesn't force anything on anyone.