[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I don't see how this is relevant. If theists form a church they have a much easier time getting tax exempt status than atheists who form similar organizations. That's an example religious privilege.

But atheists can be religious. Many white/Western Buddhists are atheists or at the very least agnostic, since Buddhism here hasn't fused with other religions as it has in the East, and goddesses like Kwan Yin have been diminished even into Jungian archetypes that don't really exist. Raelians are militantly atheist. So yeah, atheist organizations wanting to be a religion have gotten tax exempt status. From what I understand it was actually a lot easier for Raelians to accomplish that in the states than it has in Quebec.

Which is what I said to begin with, these old laws are often used in attempts to remove people from office. You doubted that it happened, I gave you evidence.

Attempts, but not successful attempts. White people can still successfully murder black people and face no consequences. Women are still ***** and there's only a 3% chance of her rapist ever being convicted. Christians can bitch and whine about it but they're getting dragged along whether they want to or not.

And that is relevant HOW? It's one example of these old discriminatory laws being used against those who profess no faith.

Because he's religious. You're trying to break this down as if being religious and being atheist is mutually exclusive. And this is one way why "religious privilege vs oppressed atheists" doesn't work. There's an awful lot of intermingling.

...So then it would follow that if they're uncomfortable answering in a manner that makes them seem racist, but comfortable redirecting their hate at atheists we have a serious problem on our hands.

Except not really. PoC are still being killed on a daily basis with no recourse for justice. PoC are still denied economic advancement. No such oppression exists for atheists except a general distrust.

I like how you used the word "worship". I'd actually say Sam Harris is worse than both Dawkins and Hitchens.

In any case, none of this is really relevant unless we want to play the oppression Olympics. No one exists independent of their race/social class/etc.

Outspoken atheists come from the cultural elite because they have less to lose by being outspoken. If they're oppressive it's because they come from the cultural elite, not because they're atheists, so I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here.

But you're playing the oppression olympics because you're trying to argue that atheists are the MOST oppressed, uniquely from other religious minorities, despite the fact that Muslims and Sikhs are being slaughtered willy nilly, despite the fact that Hitchens was beside himself trying to support the Iraq War so we could kill more.

Atheists in a position of power do not have "less to lose". How do reservation folk have less to lose? How do voodooists have less to lose? What do they have to lose? Dawkins and Hitchens can get away with it because they are neoliberals and imperialists. They aren't revolutionaries, they uphold the status quo with a different spin on it. Jeremiah Wright can be decried by a whole nation for him saying governments lie and white supremacy lives. He had a lot more to lose.

Different situation. I'm a dude - young men tend to be more willing to verbally/violently confront other young men at that age. My read on it was that the Guy had to back down because otherwise it would've lead to a fistfight and he wasn't ready to take it that far in the middle of class.

So I magically turned into a dude when I converted?

Also, you're in Canada, I'm in America. At the time I was in the Bible belt in rural Kentucky. This was a town which forced you to say the Lord's Prayer in Public school and posted the ten commandments and articles about secret satanists in the courthouse didn't give two shits if it was illegal.

In Newfoundland, all schools were very legally run by churches until 1999, and after that there was a long transition period since we kept the same curriculum. I was obligated to do Bible study, the school would all collectively go to church on special occassions like Remembrance Day, the Catholics had to go to a different school until 1999, and even after that they had to go to the basement classes to do their religion courses. Despite being Buddhist I couldn't be exempt from a course in grade 9 called "Our Christian Heritage." Srsly dude.

The comparison I made has nothing to do with that - it has to do with the demand to remain in the closet, which IS a problem in the gay community.

My comparison would be wrong if I said that the gay experience was the same as the atheist experience. I didn't say that.

The comparison is offense, and don't try to tell me whats a problem in my own community. I'm telling you, its far from it.



Saya, none of this is relevant to what I'm talking about. I'm not saying that there isn't oppression targeted at minority religions, LGBTQ, etc. I'm saying that there IS also oppression targeted at atheists and you're saying there isn't.

I would never dismiss your experience with oppression as a woman, or a buddhist or anything else, but you seem dead set on dismissing mine.

That's messed up. You should probably stop doing that.[/quote]

Yes, I'm oppressing you by telling you that you are not nearly the most oppressed people in the world or that your black and white division between atheists and religious folk is wrong. That's totally it. I'm totally in a position where I can employ economic, social, and violence oppression over you, just by being religious.

You've got a point here, but again it's not a point that eliminates religious privilege - it simply points out that the way of proving your status hinges on being a member of a RECOGNIZED group that opposes war, and again - that's a much easier sell when that group opposes it for religious reasons.

Its not, I already pointed out that Muslims were not given the chance, not even after the ruling that allowed atheists to claim CO status. It had to come later with the Muhammad Ali ruling. And seriously, try and see how quick people are to argue when a Muslim makes any kind of claim that they are pacifist on the grounds of Islam. Suddenly everyone is a religious studies expert. I don't doubt there would be a lot of trouble for them if there's ever a draft again.

While I sympathize, that doesn't make it the same thing as religious faith.

Look Saya, if you want me to say that you're more oppressed than me I'll say it - YOU ARE. DO you want me to say that I'm more privileged than you? I am. Do you want me to say that it's to a very large degree? Sure, yes, you're right It is.

That still doesn't invalidate my experience and the experience of people like me who are faithless, and it is inappropriate for you to try to do that. Again, I would never say something like that about you or your experience - and if I did in the past make a mistake like that I'd apologize for it now because I recognize that that's wrong, and that's not who I am anymore.

But none of that, and nothing that you have brought to the table gives you the right to dismiss someone like you have been. It's just wrong, and I would hope you give it some consideration in the future.

Yeah, I only have a degree in religious studies and learned how faith operates outside of religion or anything. And that might take a lot more time than I can take on a forum post, but Authentic Fakes by Chidester is a good place to start.

As to why this isn't the same kind of oppression other minorities you claim atheists are more hated against, heres a good read on neoliberalism in the atheist movement: http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.html