Living in rural America, where Atheism is still technically illegal in some places even though no one would dare enforce it, I think distinguishing the labels “rational thinkers” from “atheists” is a very good idea. I don’t think someone who considers themselves rational and theist would be particularly proud to associate with the label that best fits their particular brand of theism (Roman Catholicism and Mormonism seem to spawn subverters of this expectation, but reducing to the common category of “christian” seems to invoke way more cultural baggage).
Or rather, I wouldn’t dare call myself a christian or an atheist anywhere anyone could possibly find out about. Smart people would dismiss me as inferior for the former, 90% of people within a 200mi radius would start hurling crosses at me for the latter. Probably will need allies in both groups, so I’m kinda concerned about this whole labels thing.
It’s not illegal in terms of private life, but certain jobs, particularly public office are forbidden outright to atheists on the state level. I’m more worried about the social consequences, though, since it obviously wouldn’t hold up in court.
I don’t remember exactly where I read about these laws, so it’s entirely possible I’m completely mistaken. It was in the past year, though, which makes me a little more confident that I had reason to trust the source.
Remember, “Y is technically X” means “Y is not X, but I’m being disagreeable.”
In the U.S., when laws are stricken down as unconstitutional, they are not automatically repealed or removed from the statute books. They are just ignored and not enforced.
For instance, after the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, all state sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional. However, the states don’t have to formally repeal them (which would require effort from their legislatures) — rather, those laws are simply considered null and void, unenforceable. Some states went and repealed them anyway, but Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas have not.
So yes, there may be some states or towns that have laws on the books discriminating against atheists, or imposing punishments for blasphemy, or even requiring everyone to go to church. But because these laws are null and void under all sorts of court rulings, it is incorrect to say that atheism is illegal; just as it is incorrect to say that sodomy is illegal.
(There are certainly plenty of people — including many government officials, government school teachers, etc. — who discriminate against atheists, of course. And against Jehovah’s Witnesses, Wiccans, and other religious minorities.)
Now that I’ve tried explaining it, I’m worried my wording was dark artsy enough to warrant a retraction.
I’m pretty sure it’s survived mainly because no one ever bothered challenging it. To do so would require revealing one’s self as sympathetic to atheists, if not atheist one’s self, which would be a death sentence to one’s career if they lived in-state afterward (maybe they could work out of one of the more liberal colleges; the one I’m thinking of is religiously affiliated, but is way more tolerant than the general population, to the best that I can discern).
Living in rural America, where Atheism is still technically illegal in some places even though no one would dare enforce it, I think distinguishing the labels “rational thinkers” from “atheists” is a very good idea. I don’t think someone who considers themselves rational and theist would be particularly proud to associate with the label that best fits their particular brand of theism (Roman Catholicism and Mormonism seem to spawn subverters of this expectation, but reducing to the common category of “christian” seems to invoke way more cultural baggage).
Or rather, I wouldn’t dare call myself a christian or an atheist anywhere anyone could possibly find out about. Smart people would dismiss me as inferior for the former, 90% of people within a 200mi radius would start hurling crosses at me for the latter. Probably will need allies in both groups, so I’m kinda concerned about this whole labels thing.
I would be interested to hear which places in rural america, and specifically what law makes atheism unlawful.
It’s not illegal in terms of private life, but certain jobs, particularly public office are forbidden outright to atheists on the state level. I’m more worried about the social consequences, though, since it obviously wouldn’t hold up in court.
I don’t remember exactly where I read about these laws, so it’s entirely possible I’m completely mistaken. It was in the past year, though, which makes me a little more confident that I had reason to trust the source.
Please take a moment to think of how you would choose a term to google to check whether these laws actually exist.
Yes, it is true that 7 state consitutions ban atheists from holding office. This requirement has been struck down by the supreme court. But that doesn’t stop people from agitating about enforcing them.
Woah, woah. Back up. Seriously? This is a thing? How on earth has this survived despite, y’know, being illegal?
Remember, “Y is technically X” means “Y is not X, but I’m being disagreeable.”
In the U.S., when laws are stricken down as unconstitutional, they are not automatically repealed or removed from the statute books. They are just ignored and not enforced.
For instance, after the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, all state sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional. However, the states don’t have to formally repeal them (which would require effort from their legislatures) — rather, those laws are simply considered null and void, unenforceable. Some states went and repealed them anyway, but Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas have not.
So yes, there may be some states or towns that have laws on the books discriminating against atheists, or imposing punishments for blasphemy, or even requiring everyone to go to church. But because these laws are null and void under all sorts of court rulings, it is incorrect to say that atheism is illegal; just as it is incorrect to say that sodomy is illegal.
(There are certainly plenty of people — including many government officials, government school teachers, etc. — who discriminate against atheists, of course. And against Jehovah’s Witnesses, Wiccans, and other religious minorities.)
The particular law I’m thinking of hasn’t come up in court, but a rather similar one in another state has and was overturned by the supreme court.
Now that I’ve tried explaining it, I’m worried my wording was dark artsy enough to warrant a retraction.
I’m pretty sure it’s survived mainly because no one ever bothered challenging it. To do so would require revealing one’s self as sympathetic to atheists, if not atheist one’s self, which would be a death sentence to one’s career if they lived in-state afterward (maybe they could work out of one of the more liberal colleges; the one I’m thinking of is religiously affiliated, but is way more tolerant than the general population, to the best that I can discern).
What specific law are you thinking of?
Me neither, but unfortunately I’ve seen at least one form (on an online dating site, IIRC) that doesn’t allow you to leave the “Religion” field blank.