Atheists becoming less unpopular?

[Amarok]

Oh I agree completely

Which is also why a Trump presidency makes me very nervous long term. Not just his impulsive tweets that could get us into WW3, that scares me the most. But outside that you look at his business history and how many people he ripped off and used high priced lawyers to drag court cases out to make the complainant quit or settle. No he cant become a ruling family, but you see how close his kids are and no, I don't believe for one second he will keep his nose out of it. He is using his own private club, which isn't a private house, but a BUSINESS, in FLA. I fear the tone the economic right is setting for more and more politicians long term. That lack of separation sets up long term dept and cronism. The very things that lead to economic collapse and civil war and revolutions. 

You don't allow any class or sect of religion or political party a monopoly. Our separations of powers in the west are designed to prevent monopolies of power. I don't see right now in this point in history the GOP really giving one shit about stopping monopolies.

Indeed if every sectarianism, nepotism ,Or the erosion of boundaries  reared it's ugly head that time is now.

[Neo-Scholastic]

All of which has nothing to do with Aquinas since he in no way defended slavery as practiced during his time. The original objection was that Scholastic philosophy did not support the concept of inherent natural rights - the same divinely provided natural rights to which the American Founding Fathers referred. I have adequately demonstrated that objection to be false. It should surprise no one that people throughout the ages do not always live up to the ideals they espouse. Failure of someone to practice an idea does not make the idea false.

Aquinas defended slavery as instituted by God in punishment for sin, and justified as being part of the ‘right of nations’ and natural law. He held that slavery could be consistent with natural law if it is imposed by positive law as punishment for crimes, and if such slavery did not violate the slave's rights to food, sleep, marriage (or celibacy), raising of their children, and religious worship (and anything else that pertains to natural law). Aquinas asserted that the children of a slave mother were rightly enslaved even though they themselves had not committed personal sin. He further argued that anyone who persuades a slave to escape is guilty of theft, because, while the slave is not himself property (a person cannot be property), his master has a right to the labor of that slave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C...as_Aquinas

which, of course, is bullshit; my point stands -- morality evolves.  No one, except for a handful of cranks, thinks this way any more.

Funny how you completely neglected to consider this part that preceded the part you quoted...

"Aquinas explicitly rejected the notion that slavery is justified by natural law, since he held that all men are equal by nature.[53] For Aquinas, slavery only arises through positive law. Aquinas placed slavery in opposition to natural law, deducing that all "rational creatures" are entitled to justice. Hence he found no natural basis for the enslavement of one person rather than another, "thus removing any possible justification for slavery based on race or religion." Right reason, not coercion, is the moral basis of authority, for "one man is not by nature ordained to another as an end."

Context is everything which is something people don't find in Wikipedia searches. You might want to consider the issue from multiple sources. I suggest the following:

https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-...1612191290
https://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Ancient-N...+near+east
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-In...stitutions
https://www.amazon.com/Slave-Systems-Gre...1258157500

[Jehanne]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C...as_Aquinas

which, of course, is bullshit; my point stands -- morality evolves.  No one, except for a handful of cranks, thinks this way any more.

Funny how you completely neglected to consider this part that preceded the part you quoted...

"Aquinas explicitly rejected the notion that slavery is justified by natural law, since he held that all men are equal by nature.[53] For Aquinas, slavery only arises through positive law. Aquinas placed slavery in opposition to natural law, deducing that all "rational creatures" are entitled to justice. Hence he found no natural basis for the enslavement of one person rather than another, "thus removing any possible justification for slavery based on race or religion." Right reason, not coercion, is the moral basis of authority, for "one man is not by nature ordained to another as an end."

Context is everything which is something people don't find in Wikipedia searches.  You might want to consider the issue from multiple sources. I suggest the following:

https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-...1612191290
https://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Ancient-N...+near+east
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-In...stitutions
https://www.amazon.com/Slave-Systems-Gre...1258157500

The Catholic Church had no problems enslaving human beings:

The Roman pontiff, successor of the key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom and vicar of Jesus Christ, contemplating with a father's mind all the several climes of the world and the characteristics of all the nations dwelling in them and seeking and desiring the salvation of all, wholesomely ordains and disposes upon careful deliberation those things which he sees will be agreeable to the Divine Majesty and by which he may bring the sheep entrusted to him by God into the single divine fold, and may acquire for them the reward of eternal felicity, and obtain pardon for their souls. This we believe will more certainly come to pass, through the aid of the Lord, if we bestow suitable favors and special graces on those Catholic kings and princes, who, like athletes and intrepid champions of the Christian faith, as we know by the evidence of facts, not only restrain the savage excesses of the Saracens and of other infidels, enemies of the Christian name, but also for the defense and increase of the faith vanquish them and their kingdoms and habitations, though situated in the remotest parts unknown to us, and ...
the said infante ... believing that he would best perform his duty to God in this matter, if by his effort and industry that sea might become navigable as far as to the Indians who are said to worship the name of Christ, and that thus he might be able to enter into relation with them, and to incite them to aid the Christians against the Saracens ...
...to conserve their right and possession, [the said king and infante] under certain most severe penalties then expressed, have prohibited and in general have ordained that none, unless with their sailors and ships and on payment of a certain tribute and with an express license previously obtained from the said king or infante, should presume to sail to the said provinces or to trade in their ports or to fish in the sea,
...since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit -- by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors, nor without special license from King Alfonso and his successors themselves has any other even of the faithful of Christ been entitled hitherto, nor is he by any means now entitled lawfully to meddle therewith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanus_Pontifex

[Amarok]

Not to mention in same said document

In 1493 Pope Alexander VI issued the Bull Inter caetera stating one Christian nation did not have the right to establish dominion over lands previously dominated by another Christian nation. Together, the Dum Diversas, the Romanus Pontifex and the Inter Caetera have been interpreted as serving as a justification for the Age of Imperialism. They were also early influences on the development of the slave trade of the 15th and 16th centuries, even though the papal bull Sublimus Dei of 1537 forbade the enslavement of non-Christians. The executive brief for Sublimus Dei was withdrawn by the Pope after protests by the Spanish monarchy. Paul III publicly sanctioned slavery in Rome in 1545, the enslavement of Henry VIII in 1547 and the purchase of Muslim slaves in 1548.[11]

Norman Housley observes that "it would be unfair to criticize the papal court exclusively for its failure to be more discriminating in its grants or to take more frequently the kind of action which Eugenius IV adopted in 1454 over the Canaries".[12] The idea of discovery, and the conversion and enslavement that accompanied it, were identified with hard-held concepts of crusade and chivalry at that time.

[Brian37]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C...as_Aquinas

which, of course, is bullshit; my point stands -- morality evolves.  No one, except for a handful of cranks, thinks this way any more.

Funny how you completely neglected to consider this part that preceded the part you quoted...

"Aquinas explicitly rejected the notion that slavery is justified by natural law, since he held that all men are equal by nature.[53] For Aquinas, slavery only arises through positive law. Aquinas placed slavery in opposition to natural law, deducing that all "rational creatures" are entitled to justice. Hence he found no natural basis for the enslavement of one person rather than another, "thus removing any possible justification for slavery based on race or religion." Right reason, not coercion, is the moral basis of authority, for "one man is not by nature ordained to another as an end."

Context is everything which is something people don't find in Wikipedia searches.  You might want to consider the issue from multiple sources. I suggest the following:

https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-...1612191290
https://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Ancient-N...+near+east
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-In...stitutions
https://www.amazon.com/Slave-Systems-Gre...1258157500

Bet if you can find articles about Christian history on Amazon you can also find articles on Islam and Hindu and Jew and Buddhism, but why should we do that right? We all know you picked the right pet sky hero, it isn't like other religions exist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

All of which has nothing to due with Aquinas, the philosophy of the Founding Fathers, or the inability of secularism to supply a valid foundation for natural rights.

[Brian37]

All of which has nothing to due with Aquinas, the philosophy of the Founding Fathers, or the inability of secularism to supply a valid foundation for natural rights.

NO SORRY, you have bought a bullshit cold war definition of "secularism" sold by the asshole bigoted right wing. The founders wanted a secular government. "Secular" DOES NOT mean a call to ban religion. "Secular" means NEUTRAL, neither for or against. NEUTRAL as in not playing favorites by setting up a social pecking order.

Stop projecting your fake superiority bullshit on us. If the founders intended for Christianity to be the only religion with the first dibs, then blame the founders because in the Constitution you only see "freedom of religion" and in the oath of office you see "NO RELIGIOUS TEST". That means Jews and Muslims and Hindus and yes, even atheists in America ARE EQUAL TO YOU under the law. You do not hold more rights than anyone else. 

The founders were a variety of beliefs, mostly deist. Jefferson and Paine especially railed against pulpit politics. But all of them agreed that it was not their job to prop up any religion, just their idea that you had the right to do it. I am under no obligation to swear an oath to Jesus anymore than you are obligated to swear an oath to Allah. If you want to live under a government controlled by religion and favors one religion over another, move to Saudi Arabia. 

You don't have the right, for example to open a city council meeting with a Catholic prayer then deny the opportunity for a Mormon to do it, or a Buddhist to do it or a Jew to do it. You either share the venue, or agree to keep it neutral and leave it at the door. You are not entitled to a social pecking order based on your religion. 

"Secular" does not mean dictator. "Secular" means neutrality through common law. The founders NEVER set up a religious pecking order. Nowhere in the Constitution do you find the words "Jesus, Christianity or bible'.

[The Grand Nudger]

All of which has nothing to due with Aquinas, the philosophy of the Founding Fathers, or the inability of secularism to supply a valid foundation for natural rights.

b-mine

Your issue with secular foundations for human rights is not an issue of validity, just preference.  You think that your divine foundation is better...and you're certainly free to think so. In fact, in the secular tradition here in the secular united states of Us.........that's one of your inalienable rights. God's not too keen on that one, though...so I guess there's always that.

[Mister Agenda]

Kind of on the original topic, although on the last big PEW poll, the number of people identifying as atheists rose from 1.6% to about 3.1%; but in a 2011 Gallup poll, about 10% of American put 'no' as their answer to the question: 'Do you believe in God?'. It's fairly suggestive of stigma that two thirds of the people who don't believe in God aren't willing to identify as atheists. About 12% of Americans express belief in a 'universal spirit'.

It's a hard subject to poll accurately, but it seems to me that just from nonbelievers getting more comfortable with identifying as nonbelievers; the percentage of Americans who identify as atheists could go over 4% on the next PEW poll just from nonbelievers accepting the designation of 'atheist' as accurately describing them.

And I think that's indicative of declining stigma.

[Jehanne]

All of which has nothing to due with Aquinas, the philosophy of the Founding Fathers, or the inability of secularism to supply a valid foundation for natural rights.

NO SORRY, you have bought a bullshit cold war definition of "secularism" sold by the asshole bigoted right wing. The founders wanted a secular government. "Secular" DOES NOT mean a call to ban religion. "Secular" means NEUTRAL, neither for or against. NEUTRAL as in not playing favorites by setting up a social pecking order.

Stop projecting your fake superiority bullshit on us. If the founders intended for Christianity to be the only religion with the first dibs, then blame the founders because in the Constitution you only see "freedom of religion" and in the oath of office you see "NO RELIGIOUS TEST". That means Jews and Muslims and Hindus and yes, even atheists in America ARE EQUAL TO YOU under the law. You do not hold more rights than anyone else. 

The founders were a variety of beliefs, mostly deist. Jefferson and Paine especially railed against pulpit politics. But all of them agreed that it was not their job to prop up any religion, just their idea that you had the right to do it. I am under no obligation to swear an oath to Jesus anymore than you are obligated to swear an oath to Allah. If you want to live under a government controlled by religion and favors one religion over another, move to Saudi Arabia. 

You don't have the right, for example to open a city council meeting with a Catholic prayer then deny the opportunity for a Mormon to do it, or a Buddhist to do it or a Jew to do it. You either share the venue, or agree to keep it neutral and leave it at the door. You are not entitled to a social pecking order based on your religion. 

"Secular" does not mean dictator. "Secular" means neutrality through common law. The founders NEVER set up a religious pecking order. Nowhere in the Constitution do you find the words "Jesus, Christianity or bible'.

Quite the contrary:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli