Hear hear. I don't know enough about Reagan to say wether I myself thinks he might have been an atheist, but surely you are not suggesting that there are no serious politicians in America who say he was religious.

I mean, he's the hero of the Republican Party.

To your question, I'm an atheist and have never been discriminated against for it, but then, I live in Denmark, so that's not surprising. And unlike you, I don't find it hard to believe that others have suffered discrimination for being an atheist, just because I haven't.

It is mostly the western world where such discrimination plays out, Nony (typically in the same places where same sex marriage is outlawed and the leadership wishes to deny access to contraceptives & abortion).

Also: ...Ronald Reagan?

No, he was not an atheist. He attributed his survival of the attempt on his life to God, and (a fun fact that can often cause the average Republican's expression to sour) consulted fucking mystics (the most famous of which was Joan Quigley, an astrologer that Nancy Reagan went to after her husband was shot) for advice on policy measures.

OK, here is the deal on Reagan, speaking as a former Christian who voted for him both times.

He was a guy who did not make a big deal about what he was. He in fact was a guy who was willing to stir the shit no matter what the subject was. That being said, having lived through his terms, I distinctly recall that there was a feeling in society at large that it might not be a good idea for someone who had a nearly fundamentalist outlook on the world ending in a fiery conflagration having his finger on the button. I do not recall where that comes from but it at the very least suggests that he had made at least one public comment on his core belief.

As far as a connection to atheism, no. However, A-nony may be confusing his son, Ron Reagan jr. who is an atheist. Ron has in fact publicly stated that he will never run for office because he considers himself unelectable as such.

He did not go to church and he begged off every question about religion and his beliefs. When he did make some mention of god it was folksy and grandfatherly of the "I can't believe the good lord would ..." not agree with me variety. At least that is how I remember it.

Despite all the casual talk about it not one seems to have experienced it.

So what is all the griping about?

When in the USA I encountered religious discriminatory behaviour at every turn (discrimination means simply assigning an importance to perceived differences). On three occasions it negatively impacted on my earning potential.

The first was the most blatant. An IT outsourcing agency for whom I had agreed a contract - and who were the only people in town doing the work so could not be avoided - sent me a letter after just a week working for them informing me that I was expected to attend "strategy meetings" every Sunday in a meeting room at the local baptist church where the firm's boss moonlighted as a pastor. I objected, more on the grounds that Sunday was very much a free day for me than to the meeting's location. After two weeks of strategy meetings in my absence the work stopped coming my way. I scheduled a meeting with the pastor who, in an openly hostile manner, suggested my "attitude" was wrong for his company, tore up the contract, and challenged me to a legal duel if I wanted to get the money I felt I was owed for the remainder of the contract terms. His secretary, an honest woman whom I liked (even if she was as rabidly baptist as he was), told me that he used this tactic especially on catholics. Given my Irish background I assume it was this that provoked his nastiness and not any inkling that I was atheistic in outlook. But that was irrelevant. If he had suspected I was atheist I would not even have made it to first base.

In Sacramento I encountered a more subtle variant but which was just as effective in forcing me to move on. The contract I had there involved dealing with a client base which contained a substantial core of christians (of the "born-again" variety). The catch here was that the work involved quite a lot of home-visits, and in the surroundings of their own private domains these people thought nothing of querying my views on their religious stance, however much I attempted to demonstrate the irrelevance of it. Within a short time of my atheistic views having been established they effectively ended the business relationship unilaterally. Being the person I am I was not content to be left guessing about the reasons and used considerable effort and time in pursuing them for an explanation. Confirmation that they were "uncomfortable" with my "choice to reject god" came from several of them.

The third occasion was probably the one most others would recognise - a person whose delusional fantasies are not their only psychosis and who makes it untenable to work with them. They use their religious "views" as a weapon, leaving one with the dilemma of tackling them within that subject (pointless), tackling them over the real issue, their mental illness (even more pointless), or simply moving on to a better place. I moved on to a better place, but it cost me money.

Personally, I chose not to respond to your initial query because I don't want to dwell over the past or try to present myself as the victim. I was discriminated against for being atheist when I was 11-12, and later on to lesser but still significant degrees. It affected me socially and emotionally, which is really none of your business. So stop griping about our 'griping'. If you're blind to atheist discrimination, that's your failing, not ours.

I don't hate everything about the Republican party. BUT his "unelectablitity" can change from a grass roots level if people like you get involved in the Republican party and losten the grip that theocrats have on it.

I think they have some core ideas I like, but poorly exicute and mask in religious morality. I am for small government, but personal responsibility on the corporate part. I am for gun ownership, although I don't own one or want one. I am for wealth, if that is what one choses to persue, but not at the expense of a mushrooming ratio that errodes the middle class.

BUT, regardless of what you dissagree with me on, YOU have it within you go get an atheist republican ellected to some office. No one ever thought a black man would be ellected President. And for a long time no one thought a Catholic could get ellected.

If you want that to change, then jump in the game. If it were not for the theocracy of that party, I could consider them.

I've never been discriminated against for my atheism. However, I don't foresee this happening anytime soon as atheism is not an overt attribute unless it's made overt. I don't have any atheist t-shirts, pins, bumper stickers, or tats. How could I be discriminated against?

Still, my environment has changed somewhat over the past few years, so I can't say this will never happen. I'm in Houston now, which is a very religious city. Can't wait to see what happens.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I look forward to be discriminated against specifically. But I'm always open to new experiences, even if they are somewhat uncomfortable.

And you're getting it.

Hardly that. Science is not atheist. The creationists have never really accomplished anything and I can trace that back to the post WWI Christian Fundamentals movement (aka Fundamentalists) and the destruction of science is crap because in the 1920s they realized there was nothing they could do about university teachings from very devout Christians. I do not care if the kid behind the counter at the 7-11 is a creationist or not.

Faith based initiatives are a different issue but have so far passed court tests.

Prop 8 goes far beyond Christian rantings about homosexuals. Pick the most open culture you can find regarding homo relationships and the idea of marriage would be ridiculed. "Men marry women you idiot!" even from the Spartans. The simplest solution is to erase the state involvement in marriage. People live together because they choose to do so and legal obligations only arise regarding children if any. I pity the poor judge faced with the first gay suit for divorce on grounds of adultery with another man. My greatest pity goes to the judge when it is with a woman.

I am simply asking after real experiences with discrimination. If I were to ask after people having suffered from smoking grass I would expect such reports. I do not expect claims about the laws against it which is what many appear to think is acual suffering. I would not begin to start a list of all the laws I have broken as I could not complete it. Nor would I expect anyone else here could do so as cheating on taxes would count and that would include mail order where you are still required to pay the sales tax even if not charged by the seller, which is most all states.

So yes, real experiences only not theoretical ones regardless of personal impact.

I have no secret agenda. I spelled out the difference in the first post. If the complaints are theoretical as the ones you mention are then it is a social matter which is not going to change in the lifetime of our grandchildren, if any, or even adopted ones for you folks.

The issue was atheist. In my experience it does not come up in conversation. So I asked if it was really happening. I brought it up as what I had read were theoretical complaints like yours. After a few theoretical ones I remarked on that and a few people mentioned real experiences. That is what I was asking about.

And I have no problem with what they posted. Those examples can help other atheists in what to avoid. We are not trying imitate the (mythical) Christian martyrs rather to get along in life. I have no crusade for atheism per se. I have an intense interest in promoting the methods of science and at times science itself. The methods are more important than the product.

Consider what to avoid to be self-help for other atheists. Learn to bow your head while others pray. From another thread, if Christians really were monotheists they would have offered incense to the gods it would not matter in the least. If you have an emotional hang up with faking a little religion then your atheism is in part emotional not rational. I have no problem with that but I strongly suggest getting over the emotional content. It not good for you.

Religion has been around for all of recorded history and appears to have been around as far back as there have been humans. It is not going away tomorrow. Every time established religion appears to been losing its grip another religion has replaced it. The only signs of hope have been when religion became something in the background and left there. Problem is left there and being replaced have no clear demarcation. There is literally only one culture ever found with no religion on some Pacific island which was filled with spirits both good and bad simply no religion or superior spirit.

Religion is not going to go away. Weaken it but keep it from fading away. Western Europe has done it but for barely fifty years. A recent poll found atheists an up and coming non-religion. But people are people and surer 'n' shit someone is going to create an atheist creed and lead his followers. The last thing we need is a movement. Movements are irrational. As per the Gospel of Thomas, his followers do not need a church. See how easily and naturally that fits? WE are atheists. But there is no we in atheist.

So perhaps there should be a new thread for real discrimination cases with how to avoid the problems that arise. And maybe another thread for those who want to find them to be martyrs which is a normal but dumb human behavior.

For your theoretical issues, that is social change. Social change can happen and we can be part of it. There are methods which work for the highly educated as there have always been atheists among us. Always. There are two things which have worked.

The first is areligion to coin a phrase. After the religious wars of Europe governments which are neutral on religion have not only stopped the religious conflict they have admitted atheists as a "religion." The admission of atheists is relatively recent say fifty years or so. It is much more common to accept non-religious believers such as in Italy where 90% of the men let their women take care of the religion for them.

The second is the methods of science. No one has to know f=ma. That is science. The method of science is physical evidence. It is easier to teach "show me the evidence" than to teach science. It is easier to teach the rules of evidence than to teach science. All the CSI TV shows are doing that for us.

Good sir, if this is the way you feel and the way you live your life then fine with me. Far be it from me to advise you to the contrary.

But atheism is far from my only disagreement with popular bullshit. http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml is two decades old and back then the screeming meemies were telling us devastation was only ten years away and that was ten years ago and I am still waiting. And guess what? It is still ten years in the future. I pity the idiots who believe this crap and love to kick them in the groin. But I have NEVER heard a single dogmatic statement from anyone, period. No one to kick. What a waste of the cost of steel toed shoes.

I have a problem with other things in the supposed common knowledge like the idiocy of gas chambers for Jews but again, never a single use for my steel toed shoes as it is only recited in public arenas not by the people who laugh at such nonsense.

As these nonsense things have not been brought up and they are both socially and morally inferior to not believing in the local god I see no reason to comment on them.

As I said, the rules of science are the best route to spreading athiesm. The absolute requirement for physical evidence works against the theists, the melters and the holohuggers. It works against many other popular delusions such as WMDs in Iraq, I was right the entire US government was wrong about those. I have never been wrong about Iraq and the US government has never been right. I simply used the scientific method in all cases.

But if you wish to raise an issue on each and everything where you disagree with any person who says something you disagree with pardon me but you should be a social pariah. If you limit your hystrionics only to religion then you do not help fellow atheists.

I do not care how you live your life. That is your business. I have no idea the spectrum of your disagreements with popular wisdom. Adonai knows I have seen a jillgion of them. I do know more people in the US believe in alien abductions than believe in the holy holocaust. http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html I do know every survey in Europe has found belief in the holy holocaust to be a small minority.

So getting hystrionic about a minority view in one case you should have the same response to them all. And that is very strange as social behavior.

If you are selling atheism I merely point out you are in unknown territory in advancing it as a cause. Dawkins tried it and I see no results but in England he is almost preaching to the choir as religious belief was down to about 30% when he started. Maybe not active atheism but really at the don't give a shit level of it being true or not. He is the only person I can think of who has had a venue near the size of the BBC as a market.

Good luck to you. If you have any success please be sure to post it.

I doubt this would fit with the legal definition you gave, but while I was in basic training in 1986, one of our drill sergeants started talking about God. He basically said, "I am a Christian. All of you had better believe in god. Anybody here not believe in god?"

Having learned to keep a low profile, I kept my mouth shut. I felt horrible for not having the balls to raise my hand, but whaddayagonnado?

(I guess you had to be there. He was quite threatening.)

Fortunately, I tend to hang out with like-minded people. Even the few theist friends I've had were perfectly comfortable with my lack of belief. I think things are getting better; atheists aren't beaten to death much anymore, though a lot of redneck yahoos still talk about it. Eventually, I suspect even this low-level societal push against atheism (and intellectualism, as well) will diminish, and everything will be all right.

That said: there's still base level of discrimination in society. As mentioned above, atheists tend to not get elected to public office, more than any other group. So there's one case of essentially being denied an entire field simply by being an atheist.

If we assume the stories of Christian martyrs are true then faking a little incense to Zeus would not have harmed a thing nor slowed the advance of Christianity.

Fake a little religion and slip in the scientific method. The lightning rod was responsible for more atheists than all the arguments of philosophers.

My family is religious, to this day I still get the periodic "God Bomb" conversations and mediocre attempts to convert me. On the bright side they don't consider me a "Satanist" anymore (I assume), of course it doesn't really matter at this point, considering I'm self sufficient. However in my earlier years, it would have been nice to have not just been written off by my family as a lost cause. Keep in mind I was not a trouble maker, I have never been in trouble with the law, I was active in school.. President of the Art Club, President of TAD (Teens Against Drugs), President of the Principals Committee (A group of students hand picked to work on issues within the school) and I helped form the first student run counseling program.

I've been on my own since I was 17 and I have always had a job, in times of trouble I leaned on friends, since family wasn't there. Which wasn't the case for anyone else in my family that played the game. I don't consider this abuse or harbor any hatred, it's simply ignorance that needs to be washed away from our society. Are there more extreme cases and potentially some outright abuse? Probably.

Atheism is easy to hide, you don't have to wear it on your face. I just don't support the idea that people should be keeping their belief or lack there of bottled up. As an artist, I see the world from various perspectives, to think about a world that channelizes our perspectives to only see one view, makes for a very flat world.

On a side note, can I now have my Archery and Swimming merit badges, I earned, or do I still need to be a member of a Church to Join?