Million Atheist March

I tried to live and let live with my first wife. When we broke up, she said my disbelief was a part of her dissatisfation. When I mentioned that I had not told her what to think, she countered with, "Yes; but, you didn't believe when I voiced my religious thoughts." (paraphrased). My conscience is clear. I didn't hide my atheism from her when we became engaged. I can tolerate, but not capitulate.

I'm so lucky that my wife and I share our philosophical orientations. My late wife and I never discussed religion, philosophy and politics but that didn't matter. She was so wonderful as a person nothing else mattered.
But it IS great to have harmonious philosophical discussions and joint-readings together with my present wife (we read from the same books an hour a day). She says it's to keep my mind from turning to mush. I assure her that A2K serves that function.

I would envision the purpose of such a march to be to allow the rest of society to see that atheists are not social lepers, to foster a sense of unity among atheists, generally a feel-good experience.

I remember having read somewhere that you don't get much chance to run for the US presidency if you are an atheist.

An atheist has not the chance of a snowball in hell of getting elected. The religious oriented voters would fear that we might somehow stop them from freely worshipping and they would fear subversion of the national interests to atheistic goals that they alone could enumerate.

Edgar, what do you think might be some goals that would be particular to an atheist administration?

Since atheists are individuals, with minds of their own, I can only surmise what one such as I might do. I would protect the right to worship freely, would seek to protect separation of church and state, and generally do what many another liberal, of necessity a Democrat, would do, regardless of religion or lack thereof. I would certainly put stem cell research on the table again. I would seek to protect the right of a woman's choice over her body. An atheist president would not be so different from any other president, it is my guess.

The question just popped into my head, so I thought I'd ask. Thanks for answering.

Some UK Figures,

Populus poll, The Sun , June 2005
27% are atheists;
70% believe in "God or some form of higher power";
3% don't know;
35% never pray;
35% never attend a place of worship;
53% said it was not important for the nation's leader to have a strong religious belief;
23% think there is no afterlife.

Interestingly some of the atheists would appear to believe in an afterlife !

The percentage of atheists is much higher than the stats provided by Walter on a global scale (see the thread "Why not many are Christians". Interesting.

Although I am not an atheist, if there was an atheist government, I would like to see churches, temples, priests, religious organizations, religious schools, etc., pay taxes like everyone, and that they don't get government subsidies. If you want to practice your religion, pay for it like you pay your dues to the gym, to play sports, going to concerts, etc. Why should the others support you?

Also, I would like to see religion being forbidden in public places, like smoking. Do it at home or in churches/temples (i.e places designated specifically for religions). Don't bring it to schools or workplaces. Religious people have their right to practice their religion, no doubt, but atheists have their right not to have to witness their practice of religion.

Promotion of a religion (knocking door to door, distribution of religious flyers) should be forbidden as it is an infringement on other people's right to religion (or non-religion).

There's certainly no reason to assume that an atheist candidate would make atheism a central tenet of his or her platform, any more than theist candidates making their religions central tenets of their platforms. All else being equal, I'd be reluctant to vote for an evangelical atheist, just as I would be for evangelicals of any other variety.

Of course not, nobody is going to campaign for atheism or religion across the board, that would not pass. These would be minor reforms, there are more important things like health care, unemployment, etc. Religion is much further down the list, if it is at all in the radar. Although candidates do use their religions to gain votes.

I think a major issue is being missed here pointed out by Sam Harris in "The End of Faith". The reason why atheists might need to become politically active is to shake up "the moderate believers" who provide a fertile culture medium for the latter day growth of religious extremism. Harris points out that modern technology has raised the danger level and atheists have a "duty" to stand up and be counted.

The more I think of it, I believe that the idea of religious entities paying taxes should be applied even now. Think of all the money saved from subsidizing them that could go towards hospitals, schools, homeless people, etc.

As for Harris' book, I have not read it.

You mean that god should pay taxes?

Prove there is a god.



Meanwhile, those benefitting from sundry superstitions should certainly pay taxes.


Proof of disbursement of monies to programs benefitting those poor, or otherwise in need folk, whom the various adherents of the various "gods" claim to be assisting should be deducted from said taxes.

I see no harm making churches pay taxes, but they have too much voting power to allow this to happen.

And that is plain wrong, in all secular states, and in others, but the others do not know it yet.

Nice try, Cyracuz.

I think that it is the mentality of people accepting the situation that churches, etc. should not pay taxes. People used to accept that the Queen of England not pay taxes, resulting in her being the richest person in the world. Churches have accumulated wealth over the centuries, that they have not "returned" to the poor.

"Churches" have significant control over the education system, so that we have catholic schools and so called public schools for all the rest of students who are not catholic. Catholic schools teach some hours of the catholic religion in addition to the regular curriculum. Other religions are not taught in public schools. I don't think that it is a fair system, that is why I suggest that all religions be banned from schools. If you want to learn about religion, go to church or to the mosque. Schools are not made for that, it only creates an unhealthy differentiation among the youth.