This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Joe Foley is no longer a part of the University of Minnesota Campus Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists (see CASH Officers) I will remove this portion as his former position as a co-chair of a student organization does little to reinforce the discriminatory claims made here.
The entire study is referenced in the citations. However, there is also another footnote for a blog on The Volokh Conspiracy. The author leaves this note at the bottom:
The numbers found in this blog may or may not be the same as in the study it references. This reference will be removed and when I get to it (if anyone else wants to be my guest) I will go over the numbers that are on this page to the original study to make sure nothing was inaccurate compared to the study.
I have done a significant rewrite of the article as can be seen. I have finished for today and will continue to add material (mainly on Europe and Asian, Arab countries) tomorrow. -- Slp1 ( talk) 02:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with whoever is flagging the lack of atheists in public office as discrimination. Just because it is discrimination on the part of voters, doesn't nullify it. Wouldn't we call it discrimination if people said they refuse to vote for a catholic/black/muslim/jew/man with a funny accent? BillMasen ( talk) 11:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The pools who say that most Americans will not vote for an atheist for the Congress or the Presidency seem to me based on reliable sources. For those who don´t live in the USA, it makes sense also to point that USA never had yet a President or a Vice-President who wasn´t non-theistic. From my knowledge, but I think this needs some research, I think all the members of the Democratic Party and Republican Party at the presidential elections never had yet a politician that wasn´t religious. 81.193.220.198 ( talk) 18:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Gov. Rick Perry's book is not a neutral source (for one thing, all profits go to the BSA itself); it's given as a reference for the statement "As the Boy Scouts of America does not allow atheists as members, atheist families and the ACLU from the 1990s onwards have launched a series of court cases arguing discrimination against atheists, including by allowing Scouts access to public facilities. None of the court cases were successful,..." which is blatantly FALSE. There have never been court cases against BSA's access to public facilities on the same basis as any other group. The clauses "including by allowing Scouts access to public facilities" and "None of the court cases were successful" need to be deleted. Brian Westley ( talk) 14:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The latest additions to this section are in the style of a previous version of this article; there are cherry-picked primary source quotations showing that Hitler was publicly critical of atheists and claimed to have stamped out atheism in Germany. There is no reference given for the claim in the article that atheists were actually persecuted per se. My searches haven't found anything useful, only that in fact one Nazi leader and prominent atheist Martin Bormann was actually involved in persecuting churches. [12]. I don't doubt that there is something to be said about this part of history; but the references need to come from secondary sources that include a claim that atheists were actually persecuted or discriminated for their atheism; and not just as excuse for their Marxism, Judaism, or even Christianity, per these sources. [13] [14]-- Slp1 ( talk) 02:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
So. Can you find any evidence that atheists, per se, were discriminated against? It seems odd, as there were several prominent atheists in the Nazi movement, including Boornman [21]. -- Slp1 ( talk) 22:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No, really. If he suppressed an atheist organisation, for the explicit reason that they were atheists, that is discrimination against atheists. It is for anyone else to prove that it was actually for some other reason. BillMasen ( talk) 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
In response to BillMasen's "Hitler made a statement that secular schools were unacceptable. That was clearly his policy, unless we can prove otherwise..." I think this is a good example of why we need to look at his actual actions, not rhetoric, as you can't just take the word of an obviously immoral politician for granted, especially not from a political speech during negotiations with the Vatican. According to Atheism About, Hitler said, "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people." on April 26, 1933. On Jun. 28, 1937, Time Magazine reports, "Last week on the Führer's orders Bavarian Minister of Interior Adolf Wagner closed every Catholic public school in Bavaria, fired 670 teachers, secularized 966 schools. This was in flagrant violation of the Nazi Concordat with the Vatican..." Also relevant to secularization, the records of the "Second Day: Wednesday, 21st November, 1945" of The Trial or the German Major War Criminals (Volume I) states, "After a strategic Concordat with the Holy See, signed in July, 1933, in Rome, which never was observed by the Nazi Party, a long and persistent persecution of the Catholic Church, its priesthood and its members, was carried out. Church Schools and educational institutions were suppressed or subjected to requirements of Nazi teaching inconsistent with the Christian faith....Religious instruction was impeded and the exercise of religion made difficult..." Not content with merely public schools, Martin Bormann put it, "I, therefore, would like to see you put the theological faculties under appreciable limitations in so far as, according to the above statements, they cannot be entirely eliminated. This will concern not only the theological faculties at universities, but also the various State institutions which, as seminaries having no affiliation with any university, still exist in many places." As the Vatican complained to the German Embassy on 18th January, 1942, "Let it suffice to recall in this connection, among other things, the changing of the Catholic State elementary schools into un-denominational schools; the permanent or temporary closing of many minor seminaries, of not a few major seminaries and of some theological faculties; the suppression of almost all the private schools and of numerous Catholic boarding schools and colleges; the repudiation, decided unilaterally, of [Page 44] financial obligations which the State, municipalities, etc. had towards the Church; the increasing difficulties put in the way of the activity of the religious Orders and Congregations in the spiritual, cultural and social field, and above all, the suppression of abbeys, monasteries, convents and religious houses in such great numbers that one is led to infer a deliberate intention of rendering impossible the very existence of the Orders and Congregations in Germany." And we don't even need to get into the Nazi crippling of the Catholic education structure throughout Poland.
My point is that Hitler's speeches on secularization were just to impress the Vatican that he was actually intending let the Catholics keep their schools, and Hitler's speech had nothing to do with actual Nazi policy. If you do want to put those quotes in, context is definitely needed to avoid leaving the reader with a very inaccurate impression. At least something about the massive Nazi secularization of schools which followed his public calls for religious schooling should definitely be noted. This is akin to quoting Hitler saying, "I think I can assure you that there is no one in Germany who will not with all his heart approve any honest attempt at an improvement of relations between. Germany and France. My own feelings force me to take the same attitude. - . . The German people has the solemn intention of living in peace and friendship with all civilized nations and powers" and not mentioning he started WWII . Madridrealy ( talk) 04:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is what the Cologne Museums' page says:
Der Welt sollte das Konkordat die vorgeblich gemäßigte Linie des NS-Regimes demonstrieren und den Verdacht jeglicher Kirchenfeindlichkeit widerlegen. Es stellte das erste völkerrechtliche Dokument für den NS-Staat dar und bedeutete daher einen großen Prestigegewinn. Der Vatikan rechtfertigte den Abschluss des Vertrages mit der klaren Stellung Deutschlands gegen den Bolschewismus und die Gottlosenbewegung.
Sehr bald zeigte sich jedoch, dass die Nationalsozialisten keines ihrer Versprechen hielten, sondern vielmehr ihrerseits gegen die katholische Kirche und ihr nahe stehende Verbände und Organisationen vorgingen. Der schließlich seit 1935/36 eskalierende „Kirchenkampf“ veranlasste Papst Pius XI 1937 zur Enzyklika „In brennender Sorge“ – ohne an der Situation allerdings Grundlegendes zu ändern." (emphasis mine)
The world should adopt the Concordat the allegedly moderate line of the Nazi regime and demonstrate the suspicion of any church hostility rebut. It was the first international legal document for the Nazi state, and therefore represented a major gain prestige. The Vatican's justification for the conclusion of the contract with the clear position of Germany against Bolshevism and the wicked movement.
Very soon showed, however, that the Nazis kept none of their promises, but rather its part against the Catholic Church and her close associates associations and organizations acting. The final since 1935/36 escalating "church struggle" prompted Pope Pius XI 1937 encyclical "In a burning concern" - without considering the situation, however, to fundamentally change.' (emphasis mine)
No, I do not possess the book (encyclopedia of unbelief) I was going by what was quoted by the other user. It's not viewable on google books. It's not in the library. I even looked into buying it, but it costs more than £100, so bugger that for a game of soldiers!
I book-googled the society of freethinkers but references in English are scant. Lots of German refs (with the German name) came up, but my German is pretty much beer-ordering level. Perhaps some kind German-speaker would care to look over the results in this search string: http://books.google.com/books?spell=1&as_brr=0&q=%22FreidenkerVerband%22+OR+%22Freidenker+Verband%22+OR++%22Freidenker+bund%22+OR++%22Freidenkerbund%22&btnG=Search+Books.
And see if we can find evidence that the group was discriminated against because it was atheist. BillMasen ( talk) 23:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The source given by Slp1 says the Freethinkers League was "Communist-associated." Important distinction he must've accidentally overlooked. You know who also associated with communists? Hitler. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 13:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As discussed above, I have deleted the section on Nazi Germany. The problems with the section were multiple:
I still think that it is possible that something can be said on this matter. But let's construct it here with secondary sources that talked about atheists and their situation and treatment during this period. After all, there is the documented fact that atheists were not allowed to join the SS. I'll give it some thought and get back with a proposal soon. -- Slp1 ( talk) 23:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Can I view the Free Inquiry quote somewhere on the web? BillMasen ( talk) 01:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
List for me statement A and statement B which are stated in the sources, and then statement C which is stated in the article and not stated in the sources. These are the requirements for synthesis. I see that you're now outright changing your position on what warrants inclusion on this article so that you can excuse your deletions. Well, I think I'll treat past Slp1 as the expert editor and follow his advice rather than present Slp1 who seems to be looking for any excuse to delete the section in question. That's 2 against 1. 67% is good enough consensus for the section to stay. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hostility is discrimination (See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination). All instances of discrimination are included in the list of hostilities in the source by the prominent atheist organization. Therefore the statement C you listed is stated in the sources. All instances of discrimination are either verified or verifiable by multiple sources. 'Nuff said. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 14:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Michael Schmidt-Salomon says "avowed atheists were persecuted". [34] AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 15:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in a history lesson. I am interested in the fact that we have prominent atheists labeling this as discrimination against atheists. Btw, try to read between the lines. "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." I would consider "hostility" a synonym for "making a distinction against". Regardless of your interpretation, the new source says that "atheists were persecuted" which alone is enough to warrant a mention of both the quotes and the banning of freethought organizations. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 19:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Section looks good. Nice work. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 02:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is the Zellner quote "undue"? We never mention violence against atheists in the rest of the section, nor employment discrimination. This one sentence adds new information and seems to be minimal weight for maximum content. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 16:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The author is a University Professor who has to keep to the scientific method and tell the truth or lose his reputation. I'll restore that section. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 16:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The American Civil Liberties Union should be a good organisation to contact to find out how far atheists have problems in the United States. What I wrote about the KKK was from the Wikipedia article and from my source. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
What I'm finding suggests that the only group that suffers significant discrimination is "out" atheists. This is a hard group to find information for as they are so small in the US. For now, until anything else is found, I think I'll just link to the "Out" campaign in the See Also section. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 13:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I've glanced through the sources, but I'm a bit confused about the place of the Sherman item in this article. Apparently, there was controversy over one anti-atheist statement made by George HW Bush, not only because of the statement itself but also because it is known only from one source, Rob Sherman. Is there some sort of discrimination involved? From my glance, it seems that only two of the sources you provided mention "discrimination," and the text of both is identical [42] [43]. Setting aside the question of RS, let us look at the mention of "discrimination" in these articles. "On February 21, 1990, American Atheists wrote to every member of the United States Congress asking that body to pass a resolution condemning discrimination against Atheists by any elected or appointed official of government" and "On December 23, 1990, in Chicago, Illinois, Mr. Robert Sherman met with Ed Derwinski, the secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, to discuss exclusion of American Atheists from veterans' groups which have been chartered by the United States Congress. Mr. Derwinski said he would do "absolutely nothing" about the discrimination." These aren't discussing the quote controversy, perhaps because the quote is not actually discrimination in any form. Honestly, if anything, we'd be better removing the bit about the alleged quote and focusing on the veterans' groups instead. A baby turkey citation needed 05:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
(undent)On February 21, 1990, American Atheists wrote to every member of the United States Congress asking that body to pass a resolution condemning discrimination against atheists by any elected or appointed official of government. The offered resolution read:
No person in public life may be free to impugn the patriotism of any minority group because of that group's opinion in respect to religion. President George Bush is herewith censured for his public expression of August 27, 1987, at which time he stated: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
The resolution specifically censures President Bush for making those comments. This could not be any more clear unless you want to add that discrimination and the quote have to be in the same sentence or something. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 06:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The quote is single sourced, all other sources are simply repeating what Rob Sherman says. It was used for partisan purposes and needs reliable sourcing. Considering it was claimed to have been said at a public press conference, it should be simple to find other reports but none have been found. Mohummy ( talk) 16:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
AzuryFury: It is interesting that you are injecting your opinions into this article by deleting the Rob Sherman controversy that has received so much press coverage. Find a source that says it is a non-issue or it stays in, uneditted.
(indent) Actually the article doesn't cite from the Sherman website at all. To what are you referring?
Thank you for listing what you consider to be reliable sources articles on this matter. I will take a look at the list of links in your post tomorrow. Please note that I have never said that I was too busy to look at these links. Only that you should list only those you consider to be reliable sources (based on WP criteria rather than your own assessment). That way I don't have to spend my time looking at and commenting on sources that are obviously unreliable to us both. -- Slp1 ( talk) 03:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay here goes.
I have examined for reliability all the sources suggested in AF's last four posts, as well as the sources cited in AF's longer version of the Sherman section. [77], assessing each to see which are "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In the chart below the reliable sources are those that have Yes in both the second and third columns; ie are both third party and have a reputation for fact checking. I have been fairly liberal in my interpretations; I am sure that some would argue that Dawkins isn't a third party, for example, and that student newspapers don't really have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
Caveat: though I have a fair amount of experience evaluating sources for reliability based on WP's criteria, I don't claim to be infallible. In case of dispute about a specific source, I suggest posting a question at the reliable sources noticeboard.
Source | Third Party | Rep. for fact checking etc | Comments |
---|---|---|---|
City on a Hill Press | Yes | Yes | Student newspaper with an editor in chief named; reliable source; mentions Sherman incident briefly |
Atheists for HR | No | No | Atheist website, with no sign of editorial control. Reliable only for atheists' opinion of the incident |
Washington monthly blog | n/a | No | Blog posting by a random person; unreliable source |
God Delusion | Yes? | Yes | Book by prominent atheist; reliable source; a brief mention of Sherman incident, but few details |
Daily Evergreen | Yes | Yes | Student newspaper with an editor in chief named; reliable source; mentions Sherman incident briefly |
Freedom from Religion foundation | No | No | no sign of editorial control; would be reliable only for opinion of atheists but merely quotes Bush, with no discussion of incident or its discriminative nature. |
War of the World | Yes | Yes | reliable source; merely quotes Bush, with no discussion of incident or discrimination. |
Speech by Spike Tyson | No | No | Speech by an atheist; quotes Bush; no discussion of incident or discrimination. |
Media Lens posting | Yes | Yes | Not sure about this one; a media activist website, but editors are journalists; in any case merely quotes Bush; no discussion of incident or discrimination. |
TV.com bio of Bush | Yes | No | Unreliable source; any member of the public can edit the entry |
Institute for Humanist Studies | No | ? | opinion column on humanist e-zine, though an Editor named. Quotes Bush briefly; no discussion of incident |
Atlas Society webpage | No | No | Self-published article on Objectivist website; brief mention of quote, no discussion of incident or discrimination |
The Science of Good and Evil | Yes | Yes | Reliable source; quotes Bush; no mention of discrimination or larger discussion of the incident. Note: in AZ's longer version of this incident, this book was used to cite the section Jon Garth Murray and a the letter from C Boyden Gray; this doesn't appear justified, as Shermer doesn't mention either man. |
Daily Illini website | Yes | Yes | Opinion column in student newspaper website. Brief mention of quote, no wider discussion of incident or discrimination. Note that opinion columns can only be used for the opinions of their authors, not for facts see [78] |
Tucson Weekly | Yes | Yes | reliable source; quotes Bush; general discussion of US disapproval of atheists. |
American Atheists | No | No | Article by a prominent atheist, published by an atheist group. No sign of editorial control. Reliable only for atheists' opinion of the incident |
Rob Sherman's website | No | No | Reliable source only for Rob Sherman's opinions. |
Washington Monthly blog | Yes | No | No sign that the blog is subject to any form of fact-checking, though hosted on Washington Monthly website. Somewhat confirmed as Drum admits to getting the story wrong. |
Summary:
Conclusion:
As a result, I propose this as a replacement.
The disapproval of atheism is also illustrated by an alleged statement made by George H. W. Bush during his campaign for the presidency in 1987. [5] When asked by atheistic journalist Robert Sherman about the equal citizenship and patriotism of American atheists, Bush is reported to have answered "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." [5] [6] The accuracy of the quote has been questioned, however, as Sherman did not record the exchange and no other journalist reported on it. [6] The story has been taken up as evidence of discrimination by prominent atheists and atheist groups. [6] [7] [8]
In my view it is reliably sourced and gives appropriate weight to the topic in an article about discrimination against atheists. I hope others will find it an appropriate middle ground: it is longer than Zara's version, but is shorter than AF's version. I hope others will take the time to comment on this proposal. -- Slp1 ( talk) 19:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
I have reverted the recent edit about Turkey [79]. This is because...
You'll have to explore the online data analysis tool to find it, just like I did. There is no better link I can give you. -- Slp1 ( talk) 23:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I can read Hochdeutsch, and if the reference given were available (or better identified) I would consult it, however it's irrelevant as far as correct English is concerned and therefore have taken the correct action and that originally indicated in the edit summary. Lycurgus ( talk) 06:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Recently 89.253.73.146 added the following examples of discrimination against atheists to the bottom of the US section.
Though I hate delete something that probably took some time to do, I feel that these examples are too specific to include in an article with global scope. The article should not cover every single instance of discrimination against atheists. If we did, the article would stretch on for hundreds of pages. Remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We should only include examples that are particularly noteworthy. Wikipedia has a broader focus than a particular episode of ABC news. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 20:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like you're an atheist living in a red state. You have to understand that the demographics change online. The proportion of non-religious to religous drastically changes. It has been shown that people with higher IQs are less likely to be religious, so if we assume that people who use computers generally have higher IQs than those who don't, the natural conclusion would be that there would be there will be disproportionately fewer religious people online than in real life. My point being, when you come online, the world is no longer against you. But I digress.
I read through the source you provided. I think what we have here is the first step in a paragraph about atheists in the US military. The source is reliable for atheists' opinions on the status of atheists in the military. The next step I think is going to be to find some more reliable sources, preferrably not from an atheist organization. Now before you get up in arms about that, we require independent sources to make factual claims on Wikipedia. You can understand the potential for bias if we only go to atheists for information about atheists. We need to try and write with a neutral point of view which means additional sources. Additionally, I'm going to consult with another editor before we move forward. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 08:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the page title needs to be moved to proper capitalization (i.e.Discrimination Against Atheists). — Mandi talk 19:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Great source (NYU Law Review) for discrimination against atheists in child custody disputes. [85]. To be incorporated soon.-- Slp1 ( talk) 02:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Moved to restore established title per consensus. Per WP:IAR performed close despite being involved, see comment below. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Atheophobia → Discrimination against atheists – I propose that the recent page move, made without discussion, be reverted promptly. The new name contravenes the principles in WP:CRITERIA:
The change to opening sentence contravenes WP:NOT#DICDEF.
-- Old Moonraker ( talk) 13:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we're all done now. Does anybody know how to revert to the original title? I'd do it, but the redirect page is in the way; probably needs an admin. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 21:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Prejudice against athiests exists. A University of British Columbia study found that believers distrust atheists as much as rapists. The study also showed that athiests have lower employment prospects. [3] [4]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
But it’s only available in the google cache at the moment, and I’m not sure how to link to that directly.
Vancouver Sun no longer provide the story online, so it is against the Wikipedia:redlinks policy to add the old URL.
I found the WP:ENC page was very eye-catching.
Wikipedia policy – Encyclopaedic content reports from secondary sources, not primary sources. WP:SECONDARY
So I think it’s ok to put the two secondary sources. To be able to also cite the primary source, ideally someone could find a way to link to google cache? But I’m not sure how long that Cache hangs around for?
Any ideas where to find out about linking to Google cache, please help. Thanks -- CathMontgomery ( talk) 21:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Let us say that I don't like atheists to live in my neighborhood, is it against the bill of rights for me to influence my neighbors to not sell their homes to atheists? Now, suppose again I don't like atheists and I run a grocery store, is it against the bill of rights if I don't sell food items to atheists?
Next, I have children, is it against the bill of rights for me to do my utmost to dissuade them from marrying atheists?
Another question: suppose I am a taxi owner-operator, is it against the bill of rights if I instruct my taxi drivers not take in people they know to be atheists?
What about is it against the bill of rights if I will not vote a candidate to a public office because I know him to be an atheist, or oppose his appointment?
The distinction between prejudice and discrimination in this regard of the above examples is that if I act on my negative attitude against atheists is tantamount to a violation of their civil rights (which I submit are also the rights guaranteed in the bill of rights of the standard democratic country), then that is what I would call discrimination, otherwise it is just prejudice.
For example, if an atheist neighbor wants to visit me to socialize with me and my family, I refuse his advances so that I don't welcome his friendship, but otherwise I am polite with him, that is prejudice but not discrimination.
What about not voting him to elective public office or opposing his appointment, I can do that also and that is prejudice but not discrimination; or even campaigning against him, that is also prejudice but not discrimination.
You cannot make a law to prohibit people from not voting atheists to public offices or being appointed, even though atheists have the civil right to be in the government.
And you cannot make a law to prohibit people from influencing other people to not let their children marry atheists, or even to campaign against atheists getting elected or appointed to public offices.
What about I am looking for people to hire in my business establishment, is it discrimination if I exclude atheists from my employment, or prejudice?
It depends: if jobs from me are the only means an atheist living in my area has to make a living, then that is discrimination, otherwise: no.
Now, let me see some people who will delete my contribution here.
Pachomius2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachomius2000 ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I have removed part of the material about elected officials from the US section for this reason... the polls discussed, showing that most Americans would not vote for an atheist, are an indication of prejudice, not of discrimination.
Blueboar (
talk)
16:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
This is from WP:OR: "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged." This is from WP:NOTE: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles." I know of no policy that specifies what can and can't be included in a Wiki article assuming it complies with policy. Whenever people talk about WP:OR, they talk about WP:SYNTH, and no conclusions are drawn from the poll, its relevant statistics are listed, and that's all. Where is the WP:OR violation in including something relevant to, but not an example of, discrimination? AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 20:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
(indent)Ok, let's look at your three best sources.
I do not see a contradiction that these sources establish that prejudice is relevant to discrimination which is all that is necessary. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 00:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
We have sources that have commented on the specific issue on hand and the polls, as I've said. How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? The article does not claim that prejudice leads to discrimination. Stop saying it does. Blueboar was wrong to make that inference because it simply is not there. You can stop quoting him as some sort of authority on Wiki policy. I'm not going to pander to every editor who comes up with some half-baked issue with a fact listed in the article. We write about what the sources write about. The sources write about this poll. There is no OR violation. There is no synth violation. There is no notability violation. The polls have huge significance and are relevant to the topic. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 02:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's Stark, discrimination, and the poll all mentioned in the same article by the San Frandisco Chronicle. [97] AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 03:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's a site calling the poll discrimination. [98] AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 03:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Removed OR and Globalize apparently maliciously added, and in any case unjustified and unactionable (since nothing pointed out corresponding to same). Noting that this subject inapplicable to China where the literate classes have been atheistic since classical times. The same would be true for countries with non-theistic religious institutions, e.g. Burma/Myanmar. The reverse, discrimination against various superstitions/cults is the reportable topic in those cases. Lycurgus ( talk) 09:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The literate or thinking Chinese from the dawn of civilization in China or the land area later known as China have always believed in a No. 1 God in Whose name the emperor rules the people.
Pachomius2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachomius2000 ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what country you're coming from, but if there's any bias in the US, it's against secularism. This is most likely a result of the Cold War, as the USSR was an atheist state. Further, secularism is far from the dominant force in even "modern" society. The non-religious only make up 10-15% of the world. Even in places accepting of atheism, like Europe, the non-religious are a minority. I, personally, can't say anything about China. I've studied it a bit on my own time. The religion and culture is so radically different from the West, it is difficult to compare the two. You could consider a Chinese person "religious" even if they didn't believe in a "God." Further, as with most countries, you could debate about respondenet's willingness to report their religious views if they have any as it is politically advantageous to be an atheist in China right now, as I understand it. Anyway, there's an article on the Demographics of atheism, if you're curious. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 21:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The case of Indonesian atheist, Alexander Aan may fit into this article.There are multiple references in the media. 110.174.247.16 ( talk) 12:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Barry Fensom
The article mentions Islamic countries and seems to make sweeping generalization that seems sort of biased I think this should be changed to show which countries Please tell me if you disagree I am not making changes right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.167.213 ( talk) 20:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I will be erasing the mention of Turkey under "Islamic countries", since Turkey is a constitutionally secular democracy with a big Muslim populace. Turkish legal system does not recognize Sharia law and Turkey doesn't have a state religion. Calling Turkey an Islamic country makes as much sense as calling Italy a Christian nation since vast majority of it's citizens are Christians. For the record, I am a proud Turkish atheist. Drigeolf ( talk) 05:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
was explained as "moving internal links to see also". But those internal links are just mentions of the publishers of the report at the external link provided. And putting them in the "see also" is mistaken, because those organisations don't deal with discrimination only. 188.112.170.51 ( talk) 08:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I wish discussion had taken place before the move. I skimmed through the article, and I only see 4 mentions of "agnosticism" or "agnostics" anywhere in the article. Many stats discuss atheists specifically, while excluding those who identify as agnostics. I don't think the title of the article should be "...atheists and agnostics" unless we do a fundamental rewrite. For starters, we'd need to talk about agnosticism somewhere in the lead. — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This article text is srinkingly similar to the fourth chapter of [109]. It is impossible to be a coincidence. Looking at the article's history, it seems to me that the book by Robert Firth written in May 2010 copied wikipedia, not the other way round. Lechatjaune ( talk) 01:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no legend to explain what the color coding on the world map for the status of various states means. without a legend or key no useful information can be gained — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.21.223.235 ( talk) 02:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Two sentences appear in the "Ancient Times" Section
1. Historians including Lucien Febvre agree atheism in its modern sense did not exist before the end of the seventeenth century. 2. Philosophers such as Plato argued that atheism (as we understand it today) was a danger to society and should be punished as a crime.
These sentences together imply that Plato, who lived in the fourth century B.C., was aware of a sense of atheism that did not exist until thousands of years after his death. This implication should be either made explicit or removed. Perhaps Plato argued that atheism as it was understood in the first few centuries BC was a danger to society? If in fact it is true that Plato could see thousands of years into the future to criticize a sense of atheism that did not exist before the end of the seventeenth century, it is important that the fact is included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RugTimXII ( talk • contribs) 10:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I know there's a large scale discrimination against athiests in the Philippines. Any information on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.219.160.216 ( talk) 17:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The PA law, as stated IS discriminatory in favor of believers but it is NOT discriminatory against non-believers, it is in fact silent about that. Saying that it is discrimination against atheists is a) counterfactual and b) fails to collect the implicit gain there in the underlying acknowledgement that having irrational beliefs ought otherwise to disqualify you from roles requiring rational functioning. Such disqualifications are what this statute interdicts, it's tortured and doof to construe this as discrimination against atheists. It's true for example that affirmative action can be considered discrimination against the group considered to not need such action due to quotas for a fixed number of slots, but nothing like that applies here. Lycurgus ( talk) 19:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
What are the references to discrimination against atheists in Thailand by buddhists? Why isn't there any source to back up this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousAbout ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why Thailand which is majority Buddhist is listed as an Islamic country.
I also find it necessary to challenge the apparently very narrow definition of Atheism to include Buddhism. There may be multiple definitions of what constitutes an Atheist, and the one I would use is a person who denies any spiritual beliefs, and this would include things such as the occult or astrology etc. Buddhists believe in after-life so cannot be Atheists. It appears that for the purpose of this Wiki Site, Atheists are only being defined as people who don't believe in a God 80.111.155.138 ( talk) 09:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
What a bunch of anti-American bullshit. Look at the biggest part of the article .... You Wikipedia people are complete and utter angry morons. And this is coming from an Atheist. You make ALL of us look like idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.198.163 ( talk) 18:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
With reference to the comments by John Shandy, I have to say that I can see where you are coming from, there is quite clearly a campaign by believers which is all about disinformation, semantics and sophistry that you would expect from a 10 year old.
Some examples are as follows: Pacholimus appears to argue that if it is not forbidden in the Bill of Rights, then it is permitted. Notwithstanding that the Bill of Rights applies to less that 4% of the world's population, he goes on to argue even more spuriously, that if he refuses to employ an Atheist for that reason, it is not discrimination as long as someone else is prepared to offer him a job. So what happens if the alternate employer doesn't care that he is an Atheist but doesn't like the fact that he is a black man. If you follow the logic put forward by Pacholimus, because Pacholimus doesn't mind that he is a black man, then neither of the two prospective employers have discriminated against the prospective employee.
Elsewhere, others have claimed that it is not discrimination to vote against a political candidate because he is Atheist, or where SCOTUS have struck down a state law because it gives rise to affirmative action, because SCOTUS does not specifically mention that the law is discriminatory, it cannot be discriminatory. These arguments are irrational and specious. As soon as you do anything to favour one side over another, it is about choice, and ultimately all choices are discrimination. Where state laws discriminating against atheist are struck down by SCOTUS, it is because they breach the victims first amendment rights to Free Speech, and by necessity, this must include freedom of thought including the right to believe, or not to believe.
Quite apart from giving these comments a "free pass", I have other criticisms which I have mentioned elsewhere, including the fact that Thailand is described as a Moslem country, and that Buddhists are classed as Atheists. In my opinion, this whole article falls well below the standard that we would expect of Wikipedia, and bearing in mind the posts from the Christian Conservatives who are happy to accuse anybody that they disagree with of being "Liberal", I cannot help but wonder if the originator of this article did not somehow feel intimidated into showing his "objectivity".
As to the opening comment on this section and further to my previous paragraph, there are only two groups in the world who wring their hands about Atheists: Moslems (with apostasy issues) and Christian fundamentalists in the US. It is a very common tactic of propagandists that rather than arguing an unarguable case, they will resort to shooting the messenger. Hence the allegation of Anti-Americanism. 80.111.155.138 ( talk) 08:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
In Thailand, atheists do not have any recognized legal status, and must declare that they are either Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, or Hindu. Atheists are forced to pay respect to Buddha and participate in Buddhist ceremonies in schools, universities, and work places. Thai people have negative attitudes toward atheists and have stigmatized them as an outcast, uncivilized group, and at the worst public enemies. citation needed
I removed the Thailand section and blockquoted it here. It has been flagged CN since May 2013. A very quick search did not show anything supporting this or any discrimination of atheists in Thailand. Another editor had just removed "Atheists are forced..." sentence. Jim1138 ( talk) 08:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
In the summary it states "Legal discrimination against atheists is uncommon in constitutional democracies, although some atheists and atheist groups, particularly in the United States, have protested against laws, regulations, and institutions that they view as discriminatory." Is there a valid source for this?
"In some Islamic countries, atheists face discrimination and severe penalties such as the withdrawal of legal status or, in the case of apostasy, capital punishment." One quarter of Muslim Majority countries punish atheism by capital punishment. More punish it via other means. Using the word "some" seems to demean the extremity of it.
Also I'm unsure on the image guidelines. It would be nice if we could update the image with a picture of this map: http://freethoughtreport.com/map/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.35.18 ( talk) 01:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Removed this as a violation of WP:NEO, WP:LEAD (not mentioned once in article body), WP:SOAP (advocacy, I've never heard it used in mainstream press) (and also WP:LOADED)
Atheophobia, the fear or hatred of those identified as atheists, is known to cause or be associated with this discrimination. [1] [2]
-- Aronzak ( talk) 05:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
References
Atheophobia is pathological, and similar in nature to homophobia. It is unconscious, internalized, and taught from early years on.
Atheophobia is the fear and loathing of atheists that permeate[s?] American culture.
Hey, can anyone provide a copy from Malaysian law that said "Any atheist will be facing a death penalty in Malaysia"? I believe there is a capital punishment in Malaysia (for example: murder, drug trafficking etc.) as have been stated in the country laws. But I still never saw any law that said atheist will be executed. I have put a "citation needed" tag for Malaysia, please do not remove it until there is a more credible source to support the claim. Thank you. ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 23:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
No they can not, because it does not exist inside Malaysian law. Neither in Iranian law, Pakistani law and so on. Any yellow media speculation should be removed if it's obviously unfounded in official law documents. -- MehrdadFR ( talk) 22:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The information was from a Reuter's report that took the Freethought Report 2013 out of context. If you look at the paper they were writing about, it never mentioned once that simply being atheist will get you the death penalty. It only said that apostasy is "punishable by death", nothing more. Nothing in the paper suggested that being atheist it and of itself makes someone liable for the death penalty. Sega31098 ( talk) 21:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I've protected this page for a week to make the edit warring stop. Feel free to continue the argument over the contested material here; I assume that currently it's the wrong version, but the edit warring is unseemly. --jpgordon ::==( o ) 06:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
So a lot of back and forth editing is going on. Did I stumble into a war between religious guys and non-religious guys or what the heck is the reason for all the edits. I updated the world map with 2015 data, and shortly after the out of date map from 2007 is back. I updated the article with data from the main source - that is the report the Reuters article gets the information from. The Reuters article is both out of date and a secondary source. I specifically state this in the edit text but lo and behold, Chronus reverts the edit without even specifying why. Wikipedia in a nutshell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulver-ftw ( talk • contribs) 09:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I started a discussion on commons:File talk:State discrimination against humanists, atheists, and the non-religious, according to the International Humanist and Ethical Union organisation.svg concerning accuracy of the map concerning discrimination against atheists. Jim1138 ( talk) 21:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm moving the map here. It fails the bullshit test. If it accurately reflects the source, then I suspect that the source is bad. I may be wrong, but since there are at least three of us who are concerned, TechBear, it's up to you to convince us before including it.
"Free and equal" in Niger as well as Japan? China's as bad as Saudia? The UK is worse than the US, despite having openly atheist elected leaders and the Church saying you don't need to believe in God to be a good Anglican, vs. it being illegal to hold office in much of the US? At best, I think we should present this as the evaluation of a particular org, note that it only concerns legal issues, and not put it in the lead as if it were fact. — kwami ( talk) 21:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
This conversation is getting split between the commons:File talk:State discrimination against humanists, atheists, and the non-religious, according to the International Humanist and Ethical Union organisation.svg and here. Jim1138 ( talk) 08:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
China is black because it strictly controls, censors and monitors absolutely every aspect of religious life. It meets the "EXPRESSION OF CORE HUMANIST PRINCIPLES ON DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM AND HUMAN RIGHTS IS BRUTALLY SUPPRESSED" boundary condition.
The map is supposed to depict discrimination against non-religious persons not freedom of religion. The Chinese government is officially non-religious so they would have to discriminate against followers of the official state religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.101.84 ( talk) 20:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
And as TechBear said on the other page, the two users who dispute this report (Jim1138 & kwami) clearly haven't read or understood it. The classification is based on state laws, not social norms or behaviour such as Christians only voting Christian persons to government in USA. Niger, despite being a country with many problems, has no laws which discriminate against atheists.
The position and how the map is presented in the article is separate issue, which I have attempted to fix.-- Muhammed Kabir ( talk) 20:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
"Discrimination against humanists, atheists, and the non-religious, according to the International Humanist and Ethical Union organisation."which does not reflect the reports statement that it is a summary of state laws. One could easily assume that the map is about any and all discrimination against atheists. My comparison discrimination against humanists, atheists, and the non-religious, according to the International Humanist and Ethical Union organisation.svg here of Australia and the USA demonstrates that the map does not reflect actual discrimination. Also, the report does not always follow its own charter: China, I would suppose no laws discriminating against atheists. However, the report seems to change its rating systemology and reports here on religious discrimination. The map does not indicate this digression and is therefore deceptive. I agree that China is highly discriminatory toward some religions, but the report claims to be a report about discrimination of atheists. Even titling the map to the effect of "state laws discriminating against atheists" would be inaccurate. Given all this, I conclude that the map is essentially useless and should not be on this article. Jim1138 ( talk) 21:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
References
The map that marks countries in black that, at a national level have a death penalty in place for apostasy is inaccurate and contradicts it's referenced source. The reuters article in question clearly states that as of 2013 countries that have a death penalty in place for blasphemy and apostasy are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Egypt, Jordan and Syria are marked on the map in black despite not being mentioned in the article while Maldives and Malaysia are marked despite the fact they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.101.84 ( talk) 21:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Discrimination against atheists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Discrimination against atheists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Despite the laws being on the books these laws are technically not enforceable and exist in text only. Any attempt to prevent in Athiest from holding office in these 7 states would be struck down by the supreme court as it goes against the following principles in the consitution:
The First Amendment of the US Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
and
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
I am going to update the article to show that because otherwise it's sending the wrong message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.120.236 ( talk) 18:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday, I reverted an edit by 80.6.101.84 ( talk · contribs) for deleting the map and additionally removing other templates. At the time, I didn't notice the user's comments in the two-year old Map accuracy issues thread on this talk page to discuss the map. (The revert was justified though, as the edit removed more than just the map, as was claimed.) I've started this thread to discuss the issue raised by the anon user, and copied that user's comments below. Mind matrix 15:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Discrimination against atheists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Discrimination against atheists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I quote from the article: "Jordan requires atheists to associate themselves with a recognized religion for official identification purposes.[132]". Recently, the new ID card was designed to not include religion per a royal decree in 2016. I don't have a reference now (I am using a free Wikipedia offer) but you will find plenty of you search. at least I'm sure my ID card does not list me as a Muslim. SammyMajed ( talk) 12:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/ c 15:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Discrimination against atheists →
Persecution of atheists – This page has gone beyond just "discrimination". It lists examples of executions, mob deaths, etc. A move is needed for consistency with articles like Persection of Christians and Persecution of Muslims and ALL of the other articles. It is NPOV to claim that some of things that happen (especially in Muslim countries) are only discrimination.
121.218.198.209 (
talk)
08:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Some text was added 8 February 2017, I think for the first time. Omitting the refs for simplicity, the text was:
That text is clearly inappropriate as it has nothing to do with this article. Further, the text does not fit with the paragraph where it was placed. Factoids should not be added to articles unless they are pertinent to the topic. Another curious aspect of the edit concerns the two references which appear to have been copied from another article, but that can be ignored for the moment.
The added text was removed and re-added on 28 February 2017. That used WP:CENSOR as a justification in its edit summary. Referring to WP:CENSOR is a common mistake which can be avoided by reading the linked policy and understanding what it says. Removing the text is good editorial judgment, not censorship. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Joe Foley is no longer a part of the University of Minnesota Campus Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists (see CASH Officers) I will remove this portion as his former position as a co-chair of a student organization does little to reinforce the discriminatory claims made here.
The entire study is referenced in the citations. However, there is also another footnote for a blog on The Volokh Conspiracy. The author leaves this note at the bottom:
The numbers found in this blog may or may not be the same as in the study it references. This reference will be removed and when I get to it (if anyone else wants to be my guest) I will go over the numbers that are on this page to the original study to make sure nothing was inaccurate compared to the study.
I have done a significant rewrite of the article as can be seen. I have finished for today and will continue to add material (mainly on Europe and Asian, Arab countries) tomorrow. -- Slp1 ( talk) 02:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with whoever is flagging the lack of atheists in public office as discrimination. Just because it is discrimination on the part of voters, doesn't nullify it. Wouldn't we call it discrimination if people said they refuse to vote for a catholic/black/muslim/jew/man with a funny accent? BillMasen ( talk) 11:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The pools who say that most Americans will not vote for an atheist for the Congress or the Presidency seem to me based on reliable sources. For those who don´t live in the USA, it makes sense also to point that USA never had yet a President or a Vice-President who wasn´t non-theistic. From my knowledge, but I think this needs some research, I think all the members of the Democratic Party and Republican Party at the presidential elections never had yet a politician that wasn´t religious. 81.193.220.198 ( talk) 18:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Gov. Rick Perry's book is not a neutral source (for one thing, all profits go to the BSA itself); it's given as a reference for the statement "As the Boy Scouts of America does not allow atheists as members, atheist families and the ACLU from the 1990s onwards have launched a series of court cases arguing discrimination against atheists, including by allowing Scouts access to public facilities. None of the court cases were successful,..." which is blatantly FALSE. There have never been court cases against BSA's access to public facilities on the same basis as any other group. The clauses "including by allowing Scouts access to public facilities" and "None of the court cases were successful" need to be deleted. Brian Westley ( talk) 14:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The latest additions to this section are in the style of a previous version of this article; there are cherry-picked primary source quotations showing that Hitler was publicly critical of atheists and claimed to have stamped out atheism in Germany. There is no reference given for the claim in the article that atheists were actually persecuted per se. My searches haven't found anything useful, only that in fact one Nazi leader and prominent atheist Martin Bormann was actually involved in persecuting churches. [12]. I don't doubt that there is something to be said about this part of history; but the references need to come from secondary sources that include a claim that atheists were actually persecuted or discriminated for their atheism; and not just as excuse for their Marxism, Judaism, or even Christianity, per these sources. [13] [14]-- Slp1 ( talk) 02:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
So. Can you find any evidence that atheists, per se, were discriminated against? It seems odd, as there were several prominent atheists in the Nazi movement, including Boornman [21]. -- Slp1 ( talk) 22:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No, really. If he suppressed an atheist organisation, for the explicit reason that they were atheists, that is discrimination against atheists. It is for anyone else to prove that it was actually for some other reason. BillMasen ( talk) 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
In response to BillMasen's "Hitler made a statement that secular schools were unacceptable. That was clearly his policy, unless we can prove otherwise..." I think this is a good example of why we need to look at his actual actions, not rhetoric, as you can't just take the word of an obviously immoral politician for granted, especially not from a political speech during negotiations with the Vatican. According to Atheism About, Hitler said, "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people." on April 26, 1933. On Jun. 28, 1937, Time Magazine reports, "Last week on the Führer's orders Bavarian Minister of Interior Adolf Wagner closed every Catholic public school in Bavaria, fired 670 teachers, secularized 966 schools. This was in flagrant violation of the Nazi Concordat with the Vatican..." Also relevant to secularization, the records of the "Second Day: Wednesday, 21st November, 1945" of The Trial or the German Major War Criminals (Volume I) states, "After a strategic Concordat with the Holy See, signed in July, 1933, in Rome, which never was observed by the Nazi Party, a long and persistent persecution of the Catholic Church, its priesthood and its members, was carried out. Church Schools and educational institutions were suppressed or subjected to requirements of Nazi teaching inconsistent with the Christian faith....Religious instruction was impeded and the exercise of religion made difficult..." Not content with merely public schools, Martin Bormann put it, "I, therefore, would like to see you put the theological faculties under appreciable limitations in so far as, according to the above statements, they cannot be entirely eliminated. This will concern not only the theological faculties at universities, but also the various State institutions which, as seminaries having no affiliation with any university, still exist in many places." As the Vatican complained to the German Embassy on 18th January, 1942, "Let it suffice to recall in this connection, among other things, the changing of the Catholic State elementary schools into un-denominational schools; the permanent or temporary closing of many minor seminaries, of not a few major seminaries and of some theological faculties; the suppression of almost all the private schools and of numerous Catholic boarding schools and colleges; the repudiation, decided unilaterally, of [Page 44] financial obligations which the State, municipalities, etc. had towards the Church; the increasing difficulties put in the way of the activity of the religious Orders and Congregations in the spiritual, cultural and social field, and above all, the suppression of abbeys, monasteries, convents and religious houses in such great numbers that one is led to infer a deliberate intention of rendering impossible the very existence of the Orders and Congregations in Germany." And we don't even need to get into the Nazi crippling of the Catholic education structure throughout Poland.
My point is that Hitler's speeches on secularization were just to impress the Vatican that he was actually intending let the Catholics keep their schools, and Hitler's speech had nothing to do with actual Nazi policy. If you do want to put those quotes in, context is definitely needed to avoid leaving the reader with a very inaccurate impression. At least something about the massive Nazi secularization of schools which followed his public calls for religious schooling should definitely be noted. This is akin to quoting Hitler saying, "I think I can assure you that there is no one in Germany who will not with all his heart approve any honest attempt at an improvement of relations between. Germany and France. My own feelings force me to take the same attitude. - . . The German people has the solemn intention of living in peace and friendship with all civilized nations and powers" and not mentioning he started WWII . Madridrealy ( talk) 04:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is what the Cologne Museums' page says:
Der Welt sollte das Konkordat die vorgeblich gemäßigte Linie des NS-Regimes demonstrieren und den Verdacht jeglicher Kirchenfeindlichkeit widerlegen. Es stellte das erste völkerrechtliche Dokument für den NS-Staat dar und bedeutete daher einen großen Prestigegewinn. Der Vatikan rechtfertigte den Abschluss des Vertrages mit der klaren Stellung Deutschlands gegen den Bolschewismus und die Gottlosenbewegung.
Sehr bald zeigte sich jedoch, dass die Nationalsozialisten keines ihrer Versprechen hielten, sondern vielmehr ihrerseits gegen die katholische Kirche und ihr nahe stehende Verbände und Organisationen vorgingen. Der schließlich seit 1935/36 eskalierende „Kirchenkampf“ veranlasste Papst Pius XI 1937 zur Enzyklika „In brennender Sorge“ – ohne an der Situation allerdings Grundlegendes zu ändern." (emphasis mine)
The world should adopt the Concordat the allegedly moderate line of the Nazi regime and demonstrate the suspicion of any church hostility rebut. It was the first international legal document for the Nazi state, and therefore represented a major gain prestige. The Vatican's justification for the conclusion of the contract with the clear position of Germany against Bolshevism and the wicked movement.
Very soon showed, however, that the Nazis kept none of their promises, but rather its part against the Catholic Church and her close associates associations and organizations acting. The final since 1935/36 escalating "church struggle" prompted Pope Pius XI 1937 encyclical "In a burning concern" - without considering the situation, however, to fundamentally change.' (emphasis mine)
No, I do not possess the book (encyclopedia of unbelief) I was going by what was quoted by the other user. It's not viewable on google books. It's not in the library. I even looked into buying it, but it costs more than £100, so bugger that for a game of soldiers!
I book-googled the society of freethinkers but references in English are scant. Lots of German refs (with the German name) came up, but my German is pretty much beer-ordering level. Perhaps some kind German-speaker would care to look over the results in this search string: http://books.google.com/books?spell=1&as_brr=0&q=%22FreidenkerVerband%22+OR+%22Freidenker+Verband%22+OR++%22Freidenker+bund%22+OR++%22Freidenkerbund%22&btnG=Search+Books.
And see if we can find evidence that the group was discriminated against because it was atheist. BillMasen ( talk) 23:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The source given by Slp1 says the Freethinkers League was "Communist-associated." Important distinction he must've accidentally overlooked. You know who also associated with communists? Hitler. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 13:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As discussed above, I have deleted the section on Nazi Germany. The problems with the section were multiple:
I still think that it is possible that something can be said on this matter. But let's construct it here with secondary sources that talked about atheists and their situation and treatment during this period. After all, there is the documented fact that atheists were not allowed to join the SS. I'll give it some thought and get back with a proposal soon. -- Slp1 ( talk) 23:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Can I view the Free Inquiry quote somewhere on the web? BillMasen ( talk) 01:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
List for me statement A and statement B which are stated in the sources, and then statement C which is stated in the article and not stated in the sources. These are the requirements for synthesis. I see that you're now outright changing your position on what warrants inclusion on this article so that you can excuse your deletions. Well, I think I'll treat past Slp1 as the expert editor and follow his advice rather than present Slp1 who seems to be looking for any excuse to delete the section in question. That's 2 against 1. 67% is good enough consensus for the section to stay. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hostility is discrimination (See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination). All instances of discrimination are included in the list of hostilities in the source by the prominent atheist organization. Therefore the statement C you listed is stated in the sources. All instances of discrimination are either verified or verifiable by multiple sources. 'Nuff said. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 14:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Michael Schmidt-Salomon says "avowed atheists were persecuted". [34] AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 15:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in a history lesson. I am interested in the fact that we have prominent atheists labeling this as discrimination against atheists. Btw, try to read between the lines. "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." I would consider "hostility" a synonym for "making a distinction against". Regardless of your interpretation, the new source says that "atheists were persecuted" which alone is enough to warrant a mention of both the quotes and the banning of freethought organizations. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 19:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Section looks good. Nice work. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 02:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is the Zellner quote "undue"? We never mention violence against atheists in the rest of the section, nor employment discrimination. This one sentence adds new information and seems to be minimal weight for maximum content. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 16:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The author is a University Professor who has to keep to the scientific method and tell the truth or lose his reputation. I'll restore that section. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 16:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The American Civil Liberties Union should be a good organisation to contact to find out how far atheists have problems in the United States. What I wrote about the KKK was from the Wikipedia article and from my source. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
What I'm finding suggests that the only group that suffers significant discrimination is "out" atheists. This is a hard group to find information for as they are so small in the US. For now, until anything else is found, I think I'll just link to the "Out" campaign in the See Also section. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 13:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I've glanced through the sources, but I'm a bit confused about the place of the Sherman item in this article. Apparently, there was controversy over one anti-atheist statement made by George HW Bush, not only because of the statement itself but also because it is known only from one source, Rob Sherman. Is there some sort of discrimination involved? From my glance, it seems that only two of the sources you provided mention "discrimination," and the text of both is identical [42] [43]. Setting aside the question of RS, let us look at the mention of "discrimination" in these articles. "On February 21, 1990, American Atheists wrote to every member of the United States Congress asking that body to pass a resolution condemning discrimination against Atheists by any elected or appointed official of government" and "On December 23, 1990, in Chicago, Illinois, Mr. Robert Sherman met with Ed Derwinski, the secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, to discuss exclusion of American Atheists from veterans' groups which have been chartered by the United States Congress. Mr. Derwinski said he would do "absolutely nothing" about the discrimination." These aren't discussing the quote controversy, perhaps because the quote is not actually discrimination in any form. Honestly, if anything, we'd be better removing the bit about the alleged quote and focusing on the veterans' groups instead. A baby turkey citation needed 05:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
(undent)On February 21, 1990, American Atheists wrote to every member of the United States Congress asking that body to pass a resolution condemning discrimination against atheists by any elected or appointed official of government. The offered resolution read:
No person in public life may be free to impugn the patriotism of any minority group because of that group's opinion in respect to religion. President George Bush is herewith censured for his public expression of August 27, 1987, at which time he stated: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
The resolution specifically censures President Bush for making those comments. This could not be any more clear unless you want to add that discrimination and the quote have to be in the same sentence or something. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 06:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The quote is single sourced, all other sources are simply repeating what Rob Sherman says. It was used for partisan purposes and needs reliable sourcing. Considering it was claimed to have been said at a public press conference, it should be simple to find other reports but none have been found. Mohummy ( talk) 16:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
AzuryFury: It is interesting that you are injecting your opinions into this article by deleting the Rob Sherman controversy that has received so much press coverage. Find a source that says it is a non-issue or it stays in, uneditted.
(indent) Actually the article doesn't cite from the Sherman website at all. To what are you referring?
Thank you for listing what you consider to be reliable sources articles on this matter. I will take a look at the list of links in your post tomorrow. Please note that I have never said that I was too busy to look at these links. Only that you should list only those you consider to be reliable sources (based on WP criteria rather than your own assessment). That way I don't have to spend my time looking at and commenting on sources that are obviously unreliable to us both. -- Slp1 ( talk) 03:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay here goes.
I have examined for reliability all the sources suggested in AF's last four posts, as well as the sources cited in AF's longer version of the Sherman section. [77], assessing each to see which are "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In the chart below the reliable sources are those that have Yes in both the second and third columns; ie are both third party and have a reputation for fact checking. I have been fairly liberal in my interpretations; I am sure that some would argue that Dawkins isn't a third party, for example, and that student newspapers don't really have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
Caveat: though I have a fair amount of experience evaluating sources for reliability based on WP's criteria, I don't claim to be infallible. In case of dispute about a specific source, I suggest posting a question at the reliable sources noticeboard.
Source | Third Party | Rep. for fact checking etc | Comments |
---|---|---|---|
City on a Hill Press | Yes | Yes | Student newspaper with an editor in chief named; reliable source; mentions Sherman incident briefly |
Atheists for HR | No | No | Atheist website, with no sign of editorial control. Reliable only for atheists' opinion of the incident |
Washington monthly blog | n/a | No | Blog posting by a random person; unreliable source |
God Delusion | Yes? | Yes | Book by prominent atheist; reliable source; a brief mention of Sherman incident, but few details |
Daily Evergreen | Yes | Yes | Student newspaper with an editor in chief named; reliable source; mentions Sherman incident briefly |
Freedom from Religion foundation | No | No | no sign of editorial control; would be reliable only for opinion of atheists but merely quotes Bush, with no discussion of incident or its discriminative nature. |
War of the World | Yes | Yes | reliable source; merely quotes Bush, with no discussion of incident or discrimination. |
Speech by Spike Tyson | No | No | Speech by an atheist; quotes Bush; no discussion of incident or discrimination. |
Media Lens posting | Yes | Yes | Not sure about this one; a media activist website, but editors are journalists; in any case merely quotes Bush; no discussion of incident or discrimination. |
TV.com bio of Bush | Yes | No | Unreliable source; any member of the public can edit the entry |
Institute for Humanist Studies | No | ? | opinion column on humanist e-zine, though an Editor named. Quotes Bush briefly; no discussion of incident |
Atlas Society webpage | No | No | Self-published article on Objectivist website; brief mention of quote, no discussion of incident or discrimination |
The Science of Good and Evil | Yes | Yes | Reliable source; quotes Bush; no mention of discrimination or larger discussion of the incident. Note: in AZ's longer version of this incident, this book was used to cite the section Jon Garth Murray and a the letter from C Boyden Gray; this doesn't appear justified, as Shermer doesn't mention either man. |
Daily Illini website | Yes | Yes | Opinion column in student newspaper website. Brief mention of quote, no wider discussion of incident or discrimination. Note that opinion columns can only be used for the opinions of their authors, not for facts see [78] |
Tucson Weekly | Yes | Yes | reliable source; quotes Bush; general discussion of US disapproval of atheists. |
American Atheists | No | No | Article by a prominent atheist, published by an atheist group. No sign of editorial control. Reliable only for atheists' opinion of the incident |
Rob Sherman's website | No | No | Reliable source only for Rob Sherman's opinions. |
Washington Monthly blog | Yes | No | No sign that the blog is subject to any form of fact-checking, though hosted on Washington Monthly website. Somewhat confirmed as Drum admits to getting the story wrong. |
Summary:
Conclusion:
As a result, I propose this as a replacement.
The disapproval of atheism is also illustrated by an alleged statement made by George H. W. Bush during his campaign for the presidency in 1987. [5] When asked by atheistic journalist Robert Sherman about the equal citizenship and patriotism of American atheists, Bush is reported to have answered "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." [5] [6] The accuracy of the quote has been questioned, however, as Sherman did not record the exchange and no other journalist reported on it. [6] The story has been taken up as evidence of discrimination by prominent atheists and atheist groups. [6] [7] [8]
In my view it is reliably sourced and gives appropriate weight to the topic in an article about discrimination against atheists. I hope others will find it an appropriate middle ground: it is longer than Zara's version, but is shorter than AF's version. I hope others will take the time to comment on this proposal. -- Slp1 ( talk) 19:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
I have reverted the recent edit about Turkey [79]. This is because...
You'll have to explore the online data analysis tool to find it, just like I did. There is no better link I can give you. -- Slp1 ( talk) 23:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I can read Hochdeutsch, and if the reference given were available (or better identified) I would consult it, however it's irrelevant as far as correct English is concerned and therefore have taken the correct action and that originally indicated in the edit summary. Lycurgus ( talk) 06:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Recently 89.253.73.146 added the following examples of discrimination against atheists to the bottom of the US section.
Though I hate delete something that probably took some time to do, I feel that these examples are too specific to include in an article with global scope. The article should not cover every single instance of discrimination against atheists. If we did, the article would stretch on for hundreds of pages. Remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We should only include examples that are particularly noteworthy. Wikipedia has a broader focus than a particular episode of ABC news. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 20:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like you're an atheist living in a red state. You have to understand that the demographics change online. The proportion of non-religious to religous drastically changes. It has been shown that people with higher IQs are less likely to be religious, so if we assume that people who use computers generally have higher IQs than those who don't, the natural conclusion would be that there would be there will be disproportionately fewer religious people online than in real life. My point being, when you come online, the world is no longer against you. But I digress.
I read through the source you provided. I think what we have here is the first step in a paragraph about atheists in the US military. The source is reliable for atheists' opinions on the status of atheists in the military. The next step I think is going to be to find some more reliable sources, preferrably not from an atheist organization. Now before you get up in arms about that, we require independent sources to make factual claims on Wikipedia. You can understand the potential for bias if we only go to atheists for information about atheists. We need to try and write with a neutral point of view which means additional sources. Additionally, I'm going to consult with another editor before we move forward. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 08:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the page title needs to be moved to proper capitalization (i.e.Discrimination Against Atheists). — Mandi talk 19:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Great source (NYU Law Review) for discrimination against atheists in child custody disputes. [85]. To be incorporated soon.-- Slp1 ( talk) 02:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Moved to restore established title per consensus. Per WP:IAR performed close despite being involved, see comment below. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Atheophobia → Discrimination against atheists – I propose that the recent page move, made without discussion, be reverted promptly. The new name contravenes the principles in WP:CRITERIA:
The change to opening sentence contravenes WP:NOT#DICDEF.
-- Old Moonraker ( talk) 13:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we're all done now. Does anybody know how to revert to the original title? I'd do it, but the redirect page is in the way; probably needs an admin. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 21:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Prejudice against athiests exists. A University of British Columbia study found that believers distrust atheists as much as rapists. The study also showed that athiests have lower employment prospects. [3] [4]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
But it’s only available in the google cache at the moment, and I’m not sure how to link to that directly.
Vancouver Sun no longer provide the story online, so it is against the Wikipedia:redlinks policy to add the old URL.
I found the WP:ENC page was very eye-catching.
Wikipedia policy – Encyclopaedic content reports from secondary sources, not primary sources. WP:SECONDARY
So I think it’s ok to put the two secondary sources. To be able to also cite the primary source, ideally someone could find a way to link to google cache? But I’m not sure how long that Cache hangs around for?
Any ideas where to find out about linking to Google cache, please help. Thanks -- CathMontgomery ( talk) 21:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Let us say that I don't like atheists to live in my neighborhood, is it against the bill of rights for me to influence my neighbors to not sell their homes to atheists? Now, suppose again I don't like atheists and I run a grocery store, is it against the bill of rights if I don't sell food items to atheists?
Next, I have children, is it against the bill of rights for me to do my utmost to dissuade them from marrying atheists?
Another question: suppose I am a taxi owner-operator, is it against the bill of rights if I instruct my taxi drivers not take in people they know to be atheists?
What about is it against the bill of rights if I will not vote a candidate to a public office because I know him to be an atheist, or oppose his appointment?
The distinction between prejudice and discrimination in this regard of the above examples is that if I act on my negative attitude against atheists is tantamount to a violation of their civil rights (which I submit are also the rights guaranteed in the bill of rights of the standard democratic country), then that is what I would call discrimination, otherwise it is just prejudice.
For example, if an atheist neighbor wants to visit me to socialize with me and my family, I refuse his advances so that I don't welcome his friendship, but otherwise I am polite with him, that is prejudice but not discrimination.
What about not voting him to elective public office or opposing his appointment, I can do that also and that is prejudice but not discrimination; or even campaigning against him, that is also prejudice but not discrimination.
You cannot make a law to prohibit people from not voting atheists to public offices or being appointed, even though atheists have the civil right to be in the government.
And you cannot make a law to prohibit people from influencing other people to not let their children marry atheists, or even to campaign against atheists getting elected or appointed to public offices.
What about I am looking for people to hire in my business establishment, is it discrimination if I exclude atheists from my employment, or prejudice?
It depends: if jobs from me are the only means an atheist living in my area has to make a living, then that is discrimination, otherwise: no.
Now, let me see some people who will delete my contribution here.
Pachomius2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachomius2000 ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I have removed part of the material about elected officials from the US section for this reason... the polls discussed, showing that most Americans would not vote for an atheist, are an indication of prejudice, not of discrimination.
Blueboar (
talk)
16:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
This is from WP:OR: "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged." This is from WP:NOTE: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles." I know of no policy that specifies what can and can't be included in a Wiki article assuming it complies with policy. Whenever people talk about WP:OR, they talk about WP:SYNTH, and no conclusions are drawn from the poll, its relevant statistics are listed, and that's all. Where is the WP:OR violation in including something relevant to, but not an example of, discrimination? AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 20:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
(indent)Ok, let's look at your three best sources.
I do not see a contradiction that these sources establish that prejudice is relevant to discrimination which is all that is necessary. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 00:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
We have sources that have commented on the specific issue on hand and the polls, as I've said. How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? The article does not claim that prejudice leads to discrimination. Stop saying it does. Blueboar was wrong to make that inference because it simply is not there. You can stop quoting him as some sort of authority on Wiki policy. I'm not going to pander to every editor who comes up with some half-baked issue with a fact listed in the article. We write about what the sources write about. The sources write about this poll. There is no OR violation. There is no synth violation. There is no notability violation. The polls have huge significance and are relevant to the topic. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 02:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's Stark, discrimination, and the poll all mentioned in the same article by the San Frandisco Chronicle. [97] AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 03:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's a site calling the poll discrimination. [98] AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 03:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Removed OR and Globalize apparently maliciously added, and in any case unjustified and unactionable (since nothing pointed out corresponding to same). Noting that this subject inapplicable to China where the literate classes have been atheistic since classical times. The same would be true for countries with non-theistic religious institutions, e.g. Burma/Myanmar. The reverse, discrimination against various superstitions/cults is the reportable topic in those cases. Lycurgus ( talk) 09:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The literate or thinking Chinese from the dawn of civilization in China or the land area later known as China have always believed in a No. 1 God in Whose name the emperor rules the people.
Pachomius2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachomius2000 ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what country you're coming from, but if there's any bias in the US, it's against secularism. This is most likely a result of the Cold War, as the USSR was an atheist state. Further, secularism is far from the dominant force in even "modern" society. The non-religious only make up 10-15% of the world. Even in places accepting of atheism, like Europe, the non-religious are a minority. I, personally, can't say anything about China. I've studied it a bit on my own time. The religion and culture is so radically different from the West, it is difficult to compare the two. You could consider a Chinese person "religious" even if they didn't believe in a "God." Further, as with most countries, you could debate about respondenet's willingness to report their religious views if they have any as it is politically advantageous to be an atheist in China right now, as I understand it. Anyway, there's an article on the Demographics of atheism, if you're curious. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 21:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The case of Indonesian atheist, Alexander Aan may fit into this article.There are multiple references in the media. 110.174.247.16 ( talk) 12:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Barry Fensom
The article mentions Islamic countries and seems to make sweeping generalization that seems sort of biased I think this should be changed to show which countries Please tell me if you disagree I am not making changes right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.167.213 ( talk) 20:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I will be erasing the mention of Turkey under "Islamic countries", since Turkey is a constitutionally secular democracy with a big Muslim populace. Turkish legal system does not recognize Sharia law and Turkey doesn't have a state religion. Calling Turkey an Islamic country makes as much sense as calling Italy a Christian nation since vast majority of it's citizens are Christians. For the record, I am a proud Turkish atheist. Drigeolf ( talk) 05:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
was explained as "moving internal links to see also". But those internal links are just mentions of the publishers of the report at the external link provided. And putting them in the "see also" is mistaken, because those organisations don't deal with discrimination only. 188.112.170.51 ( talk) 08:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I wish discussion had taken place before the move. I skimmed through the article, and I only see 4 mentions of "agnosticism" or "agnostics" anywhere in the article. Many stats discuss atheists specifically, while excluding those who identify as agnostics. I don't think the title of the article should be "...atheists and agnostics" unless we do a fundamental rewrite. For starters, we'd need to talk about agnosticism somewhere in the lead. — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This article text is srinkingly similar to the fourth chapter of [109]. It is impossible to be a coincidence. Looking at the article's history, it seems to me that the book by Robert Firth written in May 2010 copied wikipedia, not the other way round. Lechatjaune ( talk) 01:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no legend to explain what the color coding on the world map for the status of various states means. without a legend or key no useful information can be gained — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.21.223.235 ( talk) 02:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Two sentences appear in the "Ancient Times" Section
1. Historians including Lucien Febvre agree atheism in its modern sense did not exist before the end of the seventeenth century. 2. Philosophers such as Plato argued that atheism (as we understand it today) was a danger to society and should be punished as a crime.
These sentences together imply that Plato, who lived in the fourth century B.C., was aware of a sense of atheism that did not exist until thousands of years after his death. This implication should be either made explicit or removed. Perhaps Plato argued that atheism as it was understood in the first few centuries BC was a danger to society? If in fact it is true that Plato could see thousands of years into the future to criticize a sense of atheism that did not exist before the end of the seventeenth century, it is important that the fact is included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RugTimXII ( talk • contribs) 10:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I know there's a large scale discrimination against athiests in the Philippines. Any information on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.219.160.216 ( talk) 17:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The PA law, as stated IS discriminatory in favor of believers but it is NOT discriminatory against non-believers, it is in fact silent about that. Saying that it is discrimination against atheists is a) counterfactual and b) fails to collect the implicit gain there in the underlying acknowledgement that having irrational beliefs ought otherwise to disqualify you from roles requiring rational functioning. Such disqualifications are what this statute interdicts, it's tortured and doof to construe this as discrimination against atheists. It's true for example that affirmative action can be considered discrimination against the group considered to not need such action due to quotas for a fixed number of slots, but nothing like that applies here. Lycurgus ( talk) 19:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
What are the references to discrimination against atheists in Thailand by buddhists? Why isn't there any source to back up this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousAbout ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why Thailand which is majority Buddhist is listed as an Islamic country.
I also find it necessary to challenge the apparently very narrow definition of Atheism to include Buddhism. There may be multiple definitions of what constitutes an Atheist, and the one I would use is a person who denies any spiritual beliefs, and this would include things such as the occult or astrology etc. Buddhists believe in after-life so cannot be Atheists. It appears that for the purpose of this Wiki Site, Atheists are only being defined as people who don't believe in a God 80.111.155.138 ( talk) 09:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
What a bunch of anti-American bullshit. Look at the biggest part of the article .... You Wikipedia people are complete and utter angry morons. And this is coming from an Atheist. You make ALL of us look like idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.198.163 ( talk) 18:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
With reference to the comments by John Shandy, I have to say that I can see where you are coming from, there is quite clearly a campaign by believers which is all about disinformation, semantics and sophistry that you would expect from a 10 year old.
Some examples are as follows: Pacholimus appears to argue that if it is not forbidden in the Bill of Rights, then it is permitted. Notwithstanding that the Bill of Rights applies to less that 4% of the world's population, he goes on to argue even more spuriously, that if he refuses to employ an Atheist for that reason, it is not discrimination as long as someone else is prepared to offer him a job. So what happens if the alternate employer doesn't care that he is an Atheist but doesn't like the fact that he is a black man. If you follow the logic put forward by Pacholimus, because Pacholimus doesn't mind that he is a black man, then neither of the two prospective employers have discriminated against the prospective employee.
Elsewhere, others have claimed that it is not discrimination to vote against a political candidate because he is Atheist, or where SCOTUS have struck down a state law because it gives rise to affirmative action, because SCOTUS does not specifically mention that the law is discriminatory, it cannot be discriminatory. These arguments are irrational and specious. As soon as you do anything to favour one side over another, it is about choice, and ultimately all choices are discrimination. Where state laws discriminating against atheist are struck down by SCOTUS, it is because they breach the victims first amendment rights to Free Speech, and by necessity, this must include freedom of thought including the right to believe, or not to believe.
Quite apart from giving these comments a "free pass", I have other criticisms which I have mentioned elsewhere, including the fact that Thailand is described as a Moslem country, and that Buddhists are classed as Atheists. In my opinion, this whole article falls well below the standard that we would expect of Wikipedia, and bearing in mind the posts from the Christian Conservatives who are happy to accuse anybody that they disagree with of being "Liberal", I cannot help but wonder if the originator of this article did not somehow feel intimidated into showing his "objectivity".
As to the opening comment on this section and further to my previous paragraph, there are only two groups in the world who wring their hands about Atheists: Moslems (with apostasy issues) and Christian fundamentalists in the US. It is a very common tactic of propagandists that rather than arguing an unarguable case, they will resort to shooting the messenger. Hence the allegation of Anti-Americanism. 80.111.155.138 ( talk) 08:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
In Thailand, atheists do not have any recognized legal status, and must declare that they are either Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, or Hindu. Atheists are forced to pay respect to Buddha and participate in Buddhist ceremonies in schools, universities, and work places. Thai people have negative attitudes toward atheists and have stigmatized them as an outcast, uncivilized group, and at the worst public enemies. citation needed
I removed the Thailand section and blockquoted it here. It has been flagged CN since May 2013. A very quick search did not show anything supporting this or any discrimination of atheists in Thailand. Another editor had just removed "Atheists are forced..." sentence. Jim1138 ( talk) 08:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
In the summary it states "Legal discrimination against atheists is uncommon in constitutional democracies, although some atheists and atheist groups, particularly in the United States, have protested against laws, regulations, and institutions that they view as discriminatory." Is there a valid source for this?
"In some Islamic countries, atheists face discrimination and severe penalties such as the withdrawal of legal status or, in the case of apostasy, capital punishment." One quarter of Muslim Majority countries punish atheism by capital punishment. More punish it via other means. Using the word "some" seems to demean the extremity of it.
Also I'm unsure on the image guidelines. It would be nice if we could update the image with a picture of this map: http://freethoughtreport.com/map/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.35.18 ( talk) 01:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Removed this as a violation of WP:NEO, WP:LEAD (not mentioned once in article body), WP:SOAP (advocacy, I've never heard it used in mainstream press) (and also WP:LOADED)
Atheophobia, the fear or hatred of those identified as atheists, is known to cause or be associated with this discrimination. [1] [2]
-- Aronzak ( talk) 05:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
References
Atheophobia is pathological, and similar in nature to homophobia. It is unconscious, internalized, and taught from early years on.
Atheophobia is the fear and loathing of atheists that permeate[s?] American culture.
Hey, can anyone provide a copy from Malaysian law that said "Any atheist will be facing a death penalty in Malaysia"? I believe there is a capital punishment in Malaysia (for example: murder, drug trafficking etc.) as have been stated in the country laws. But I still never saw any law that said atheist will be executed. I have put a "citation needed" tag for Malaysia, please do not remove it until there is a more credible source to support the claim. Thank you. ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 23:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
No they can not, because it does not exist inside Malaysian law. Neither in Iranian law, Pakistani law and so on. Any yellow media speculation should be removed if it's obviously unfounded in official law documents. -- MehrdadFR ( talk) 22:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The information was from a Reuter's report that took the Freethought Report 2013 out of context. If you look at the paper they were writing about, it never mentioned once that simply being atheist will get you the death penalty. It only said that apostasy is "punishable by death", nothing more. Nothing in the paper suggested that being atheist it and of itself makes someone liable for the death penalty. Sega31098 ( talk) 21:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I've protected this page for a week to make the edit warring stop. Feel free to continue the argument over the contested material here; I assume that currently it's the wrong version, but the edit warring is unseemly. --jpgordon ::==( o ) 06:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
So a lot of back and forth editing is going on. Did I stumble into a war between religious guys and non-religious guys or what the heck is the reason for all the edits. I updated the world map with 2015 data, and shortly after the out of date map from 2007 is back. I updated the article with data from the main source - that is the report the Reuters article gets the information from. The Reuters article is both out of date and a secondary source. I specifically state this in the edit text but lo and behold, Chronus reverts the edit without even specifying why. Wikipedia in a nutshell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulver-ftw ( talk • contribs) 09:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I started a discussion on commons:File talk:State discrimination against humanists, atheists, and the non-religious, according to the International Humanist and Ethical Union organisation.svg concerning accuracy of the map concerning discrimination against atheists. Jim1138 ( talk) 21:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm moving the map here. It fails the bullshit test. If it accurately reflects the source, then I suspect that the source is bad. I may be wrong, but since there are at least three of us who are concerned, TechBear, it's up to you to convince us before including it.
"Free and equal" in Niger as well as Japan? China's as bad as Saudia? The UK is worse than the US, despite having openly atheist elected leaders and the Church saying you don't need to believe in God to be a good Anglican, vs. it being illegal to hold office in much of the US? At best, I think we should present this as the evaluation of a particular org, note that it only concerns legal issues, and not put it in the lead as if it were fact. — kwami ( talk) 21:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
This conversation is getting split between the commons:File talk:State discrimination against humanists, atheists, and the non-religious, according to the International Humanist and Ethical Union organisation.svg and here. Jim1138 ( talk) 08:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
China is black because it strictly controls, censors and monitors absolutely every aspect of religious life. It meets the "EXPRESSION OF CORE HUMANIST PRINCIPLES ON DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM AND HUMAN RIGHTS IS BRUTALLY SUPPRESSED" boundary condition.
The map is supposed to depict discrimination against non-religious persons not freedom of religion. The Chinese government is officially non-religious so they would have to discriminate against followers of the official state religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.101.84 ( talk) 20:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
And as TechBear said on the other page, the two users who dispute this report (Jim1138 & kwami) clearly haven't read or understood it. The classification is based on state laws, not social norms or behaviour such as Christians only voting Christian persons to government in USA. Niger, despite being a country with many problems, has no laws which discriminate against atheists.
The position and how the map is presented in the article is separate issue, which I have attempted to fix.-- Muhammed Kabir ( talk) 20:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
"Discrimination against humanists, atheists, and the non-religious, according to the International Humanist and Ethical Union organisation."which does not reflect the reports statement that it is a summary of state laws. One could easily assume that the map is about any and all discrimination against atheists. My comparison discrimination against humanists, atheists, and the non-religious, according to the International Humanist and Ethical Union organisation.svg here of Australia and the USA demonstrates that the map does not reflect actual discrimination. Also, the report does not always follow its own charter: China, I would suppose no laws discriminating against atheists. However, the report seems to change its rating systemology and reports here on religious discrimination. The map does not indicate this digression and is therefore deceptive. I agree that China is highly discriminatory toward some religions, but the report claims to be a report about discrimination of atheists. Even titling the map to the effect of "state laws discriminating against atheists" would be inaccurate. Given all this, I conclude that the map is essentially useless and should not be on this article. Jim1138 ( talk) 21:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
References
The map that marks countries in black that, at a national level have a death penalty in place for apostasy is inaccurate and contradicts it's referenced source. The reuters article in question clearly states that as of 2013 countries that have a death penalty in place for blasphemy and apostasy are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Egypt, Jordan and Syria are marked on the map in black despite not being mentioned in the article while Maldives and Malaysia are marked despite the fact they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.101.84 ( talk) 21:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Discrimination against atheists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Discrimination against atheists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Despite the laws being on the books these laws are technically not enforceable and exist in text only. Any attempt to prevent in Athiest from holding office in these 7 states would be struck down by the supreme court as it goes against the following principles in the consitution:
The First Amendment of the US Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
and
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
I am going to update the article to show that because otherwise it's sending the wrong message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.120.236 ( talk) 18:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday, I reverted an edit by 80.6.101.84 ( talk · contribs) for deleting the map and additionally removing other templates. At the time, I didn't notice the user's comments in the two-year old Map accuracy issues thread on this talk page to discuss the map. (The revert was justified though, as the edit removed more than just the map, as was claimed.) I've started this thread to discuss the issue raised by the anon user, and copied that user's comments below. Mind matrix 15:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Discrimination against atheists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Discrimination against atheists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I quote from the article: "Jordan requires atheists to associate themselves with a recognized religion for official identification purposes.[132]". Recently, the new ID card was designed to not include religion per a royal decree in 2016. I don't have a reference now (I am using a free Wikipedia offer) but you will find plenty of you search. at least I'm sure my ID card does not list me as a Muslim. SammyMajed ( talk) 12:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/ c 15:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Discrimination against atheists →
Persecution of atheists – This page has gone beyond just "discrimination". It lists examples of executions, mob deaths, etc. A move is needed for consistency with articles like Persection of Christians and Persecution of Muslims and ALL of the other articles. It is NPOV to claim that some of things that happen (especially in Muslim countries) are only discrimination.
121.218.198.209 (
talk)
08:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Some text was added 8 February 2017, I think for the first time. Omitting the refs for simplicity, the text was:
That text is clearly inappropriate as it has nothing to do with this article. Further, the text does not fit with the paragraph where it was placed. Factoids should not be added to articles unless they are pertinent to the topic. Another curious aspect of the edit concerns the two references which appear to have been copied from another article, but that can be ignored for the moment.
The added text was removed and re-added on 28 February 2017. That used WP:CENSOR as a justification in its edit summary. Referring to WP:CENSOR is a common mistake which can be avoided by reading the linked policy and understanding what it says. Removing the text is good editorial judgment, not censorship. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)