It Is Now Illegal To Discriminate Against Atheists In This City

http://the-daily.buzz/illegal-to-discriminate-against-atheists-in-this-city/?ts_pid=2

On Tuesday, the city of Madison, Wisconsin announced that it is now against the law to discriminate against atheists, making it the first city in the country to grant explicit legal protection to people who do not believe in a God…

Although the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits submitting candidates for office to a religious test, people who do not believe in God are currently legally barred from holding office in seven states: North Carolina, Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas…

6 thoughts on “It Is Now Illegal To Discriminate Against Atheists In This City

  1. I think people are trying hard to make this a really big deal. It may be, for the atheists, but I, for one, grow tired of a nation in which the religions cannot get along, but unite when it comes to atheists. I truly believe that God loves us all equally, religion or not.

    Like

    • When it is illegal to hold public office because you’re an atheist, I’d say that was a big deal. When people would rather vote for a Mormon than an atheist, I’d say that was a little weird, considering what Mormons believe about their alien god. And nobody unites around atheism — this is just about one city out of thousands.

      If religions didn’t look like mega corporations; if religions paid taxes; if religions stayed out of politics and science; and if religions didn’t come with discrimination — well, it probably wouldn’t be a big deal.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I figured that comment would be taken the wrong way. I should have worded it better. It is supposed to mean that the religious people are making it more of a big deal than it warrants. Allow the atheists the opportunity to run for office. I sincerely doubt they would all gather together to pass laws to ban religious or be discriminatory about it. I think it would widen our political pool and, boy, does it need to be widened.
    Is that a better way of stating my case?

    Liked by 1 person

If you don't comment, I'll just assume you agree with me

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s