Atheists are Intolerant

[Tempus]

Hey DeeTee, I've quoted your posts with little numbered annotations which correspond to my points directly below.

---

I say this because atheists do not allow any religious symbol or activity in any public place[1]. We are often treated to news stories where the atheist runs to the courts[2] to force their unbelief upon others[3] and demand that a religious token be removed from public view[4].

---

1. Atheists? Did you ever consider that secularism is also practised by theists?
   
2. Atheists run the courts? Where's your evidence of that? What are the names of these people who are running the courts?
   
3. The courts haven't forced someone to not believe in god(s) as far as I'm aware. Could you please point to the case(s) where this has happened/been mandated?
   
4. It's compliant with the law - as far as I'm aware - to not allow religious symbols on government owned property (in the US at least, which I am working under the assumption you're referring to - correct me if I'm wrong). This would apply to government property such as courts, public schools and the like, but not private property (which may happen to be in public view).
   

---

Of course, this type of action is done under the misguided idea that atheists are the only members of the public[1] and only they get a say in what goes on in the public spaces.[2]

---

1. I'm pretty sure no one is under the impression that atheists are the "only members of the public" (or even a majority) in the US. From what I remember there's a roughly 90% religious population of which Christians make up about 80%. They're ballpark figures from memory, but they should be reasonably close. If you assert that people in the courts are under the impression that atheists make up a majority of the public, then by all means show us who thinks this.
   
2. Nope, not true. The US is a secular country. Secularism means that people are treated equally when it comes to religious beliefs or lack thereof. So it means if atheists, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists aren't allowed to put their symbols or philosophies on government property or in public schools then neither are Christians. It also means the government can't adopt a religion.
   

---

They also fabricate a clause[1] based upon a bad reading of the constitution to further their secular agenda[2] and twist its use to distort the actions of those who have placed a religious artifact in a public place.

---

1. Which clause did they fabricate?
   
2. To "further their secular agenda"? Which agenda is that? Treating people of every religious (or non-religious) persuasion equally? That's what secularism means, as I explained in a example above. If you want to place your cross somewhere on public property you need to accept that Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists have equal rights to place their own respective symbols there too. It also means atheists are allowed to put a sign there saying "there is no god". When you suggest that only one religion is (or only atheists are) allowed to do something that is what's illegal and it's against the idea of secularism - that's right, favouring atheists is also against secularist ideals.
   

Just a note before I begin on this section; up until now you've been making broad generalisations. You've made no attempt to qualify your assertions by saying "some atheists" or "this atheist" - you've instead painted every atheist with the same brush. Further, you've thus far referred to no specific events or people, simply "courts", "atheists", "news stories", etc. The only thing you can infer from my atheism is that I don't believe in any gods.

---

Take for example the lone high school girl who was recently offended by a prayer banner given to a high school by its original graduating class. It didn't matter to her that in the intervening years previous atheistic students had no problem with the banner[1], that it was not the government establishing a religion[2] and that everyone new it was a gift from grateful hearts.

---

1. I'd suggest that's an implied appeal to tradition. You seem to be saying that atheist students prior to her had no problem with it, therefore she shouldn't have. I could be wrong and I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I can't see why else you'd mention this.
   
2. Secularism isn't just about preventing the government from establishing a religion, but also preventing favouritism. To be honest, I don't know much about this case and I'm not arguing in favour or it or against it with the limited information I have.
   

---

IF atheists were tolerant, they would not make people or groups spend money they cannot afford to spend defending such innocent acts[1] or force their secular ways upon others[2]. They would see it for what it was, a simple gift, a simple gesture and let it go because such acts do not affect their unbelief.

---

1. Another generalisation.
   
2. Again, secularism isn't only adopted by atheists. Also, how is maintaining secularism intolerant?
   

---

Sadly, they do not and they become far more intoleerant than they claim religious people are[1]. If they had read the constitution and compared it to the example given, they would have seen that such a gift was NOT the government establishing a religion and they would have left it alone. As it stands, they just made more enemies[2] and caused a lot of hard feelings (to be polite) and demonstrate how hard their hearts really are.

---

1. The situation is a little more nuanced than that. I, for example, think that some religious people are intolerant, just as I think some atheists are. I don't claim "religious people are intolerant" because I have examples to the contrary of nice religious people. But even without examples to the contrary I still wouldn't claim it, because I would need to know most religious people (or have a very good study to back me up) before I made such a claim.
   
2. Maybe, although doesn't it seem a little strange to base one's enmity against an entire group on the actions of one (or some) of its members? Should African-Americans from the 1940's have felt enmity toward all White Americans because some of them restricted their rights? You keep conflating the actions of a few with the entire group.
   

---

Since atheists do not make up a majority of the public, one would think they would just live quietly in their unbelief frely as they are allowed to do for unbelief is their choice[1]. They should also respect/grant the same freedoms to religious people[2] and ignore their acts if they do not want to be a part of the situation[3].

---

1. For the most part, I think this does happen, particularly outside the US.
   
2. Yes, I agree. That's congruent with the ethos of secularism, by the way.
   
3. I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting people should ignore all acts by the religious if they aren't religious themselves?
   

I found the post became mainly redundant after this.