Atheists still the most hated minority

[Brian37]

In these modern times of acceptance and tolerance in America, minority groups of all kinds are experiencing fewer instances of abuse due to their minority status.  This trend is a positive result of general open-mindedness embraced by the thinking public.  The LGBT community is becoming accepted and gaining legal matrimonial rights, ethnic minorities are increasingly viewed without prejudice, and there are women in the current presidential race.  Just a few decades ago none of these things would have been possible or even foreseeable. There are isolated incidences of intolerances that seem to contradict this trend; but, they are not representative of the state of society overall which brings me to my question...

Why are atheists so vilified in this country?  Why, in a society where people are finally learning to understand others that are different from themselves, are people with no religious belief treated so poorly?  Stranger still, they are treated more poorly than people with differing religious beliefs! 

What brings this to my attention was a comment on a post I recently saw on facebook...



If the word 'atheist' in this comment were replaced with gay, christian, woman, muslim, black, etc...  The thread would explode with disapproving comments.  Instead, nothing.  (The second comment to the above was unrelated and irrelevant.)  Just a lone, insensitive comment, made about a minority simply for not holding the belief of the majority.  Thank you for your acceptance and tolerance.

So, to AF members atheist or not, what say you about this persistent intolerance in America?  What about similar conditions in other parts of our world?

 The word "God" was not on our currency at the start of the country, nor was it in the original pledge. Now if you want to argue that this tactic of suing is not effective at this moment in history, that would be a better argument, not a good one, but a better one.

There is a very pragmatic reason you leave religious icons off of public property and currency, now it is certainly after the fact and the words are there now, sure. But the reason even theists should not want a deity name on currency s simple. "God" means something different to everyone. It means something different to the Catholic which can be either socially conservative, or socially liberal. It means something different to the Evangelical Trump voting Baptist, while it means something different to the black liberal Obama supporting Baptist. 

The fact that an atheist filed the suit does not mean they are simply defending atheism. Lots of people wrongfully get their history wrong. O'Hair is blamed for taking prayer out of schools because she was an atheist. First off, prayer has not been banned, but organized prayer by the state has been. It is still legal for the individual student to pray by themselves in the hallway or before a test. Secondly O'hair was not the original filer of the suit, she was added later in the appeals process prior to the SCOTUS ruling.

Now the real crybabies are the religious, who are too stupid to understand that a neutral symbol is better than a religious symbol. The flag has no cross on it, it has no Star Of David on it, it has no Muslim crescent moon an star on it. Funny how the American flag has done fine without any religious word on it. 

Religious people should want neutral symbols as well. Neutral symbols don't cause a needless distraction and needless division. 

The fact is "God" was forced on that currency by Christians and was never intended to reflect any other god, despite the First Amendment and despite "no religious test". "God" on the money and in the pledge is not a neutral word and was not put there to defend secular pluralism. It was an act of gang tagging by fans of Christianity to make our government a billboard for Christianity.

Now, if you want to claim the lawsuit will only hurt, not help, make that an argument. I'd still disagree, but that at least is a better argument. It is not intolerance on the minority's part. The fact it was put there in the first place was an act of intolerance on the majority Christian's part. The fact that the majority is flipping out over something that should have never been put there in the first place, shows the intolerance of the majority.

If you think Newdow is being "intolerant" then you are coddling the insecurities of the majority, you are not defending the freedoms of either the majority or the minority. You are allowing special privilege to one group as the top of the social pecking order, and giving iconography to them as a gang stamp.

Christians have plenty of public exposure through the private sector. Their rights would not go away if we went back to the neutral currency we had before they stuck that word on our currency.