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]

[Jehanne]

[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 The executive brief for Sublimus Dei was withdrawn by the Pope after protests by the Spanish monarchy.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.

[Jackie]

[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.

[Jackie]

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]