Atheists are Intolerant

[The Heff]

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

I stopped reading after this because it is, quite simply, utter bollocks.

I am an atheist and I work in a place where religious diversity is encouraged (by EVERYBODY). It might be hard for a narrow minded person such as yourself to understand how an atheist could be so open minded, but I'll forgive you. It's not your fault you have been indoctrinated to believe such things.

I'll provide you with an overview of the things that take place in my employer to encourage diversity and mutual respect. It's not a long list, but it will illustrate the utter ignorance of your opening statement.

1. Creation and maintenance of focus groups for use by religious and non-religious persons to find like-minded individuals for company, discussion, debate, guidenace, etc. These are centrally located on our intranet and easily accessible by all employees. Examples are the Chrisitan Community, Islam Community, Atheist, Humanist and Agnostics group, LGBT groups, carers groups, parents network, etc.
   
2. We have dedicated prayer rooms where prayers can take place reuglarly and without interruption. These rooms were originally just meeting rooms that, after much discussion, it was decided could be better used. This was one of the uses.
   
3. A casual dresscode allowing the wearing of religious garments in the workplace.
   
4. Extra concessions for religious holidays
   

The last bullet is probably the contentious one as this indicates a privilege for those of a religious group over those of not, but this is usually well managed by the management. I have never seen it get out of hand.

Please, continue to bash atheists as much as you wish. You are just showing your intolerance of non-believers based on assumptions that can easily be contested.

TLDR version; You're wrong, stop being a muppet.

[KichigaiNeko]

Stop being a bloody whinging whining theist DT and grow up!!


No one cares is your problem

[Cyberman]

You tell 'im, Kichi!

[Creed of Heresy]

Phil pretty much said all that needed to be said. Anything from me would simply be redundant in the extreme.

[NoMoreFaith]

16 year old girl has banner taken down from school.

Christians classmates threaten to beat, murder and rape her via facebook, twitter and in person.

Also by explicit letter.

The cops will not watch you forever.
We will get you good.
Tell your little asshole sister to watch her back.
There are many of us, “Crusaders,” we have a better pool going to see who gets you first!
Your fuckin old man better move or keep you locked up if you know whats good for you.
We know where he works, what kind of cars you have + the plate numbers of the cars.
Get the fuck out of R.I. you bitchin whore. You are nothing more than a sex-toy of a slut. Maybe you will gang-banged before we throw you out of one of our cars.
WE WILL GET YOU — LOOK OUT!

This would be the tolerant christian love then? She's fucking sixteen years old.
I have a challenge for you regarding tolerance. I want you to find an example of an atheist threatening something similar to a theist based on their religion.

Fuck. You. If you think that's acceptable.

[KichigaiNeko]

Yeah CoH, I find that too!!

[Faith No More]

Most of the other responses have been quite thourough, but I wanted to address ths point specifically.

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.

Essentially, what you are telling us here is that since we are a vocal minority, we should sit back, shut up, and let the religious do whatever they want. Is this what Christian tolerance is comprised of? Silencing any dissenting viewpoints? The case you sited about the 16 year old girl was clearly a violation of the 1st ammendment, but you seem to feel that since it had a Christian message, it is above any such rules. Would you be saying the same thing if there was a banner with an atheist quoted on that banner instead?

In short, as long as Christians flaunt the rules and feel like the rules don't apply to them, we will never sit silent.

[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.

[NoMoreFaith]

Well, they did refer to the specific instance of Jessica Ahlquist.

But claims of tolerance goes quiet when it comes to rape and murder of young girls.

No, I'm not letting that disgusting piece of thinking go.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well, everyone is intolerant when it comes to certain things.
Aren't we? Everyone's tolerance is one's own.