I object

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. If a person says something is against their religion, I generally give them a pass, regardless of how many members their religion has. It is a recognition of the fact that whatever it is, is very important to them. Of course, I might want to verify that they are telling the truth. This happens with children and school rules. Some children clai ...[text shortened]... vegetarianism should not get preference over a child who is generally vegetarian on principle.

On an individual basis you are correct although as an individual I don't give a pass based on religion but based more on simple respect for individual preferences, without needing to know a reason like their religion, and on whether they want a pass on something I think is right or wrong to do. The person who wants to wear a scarf can do so AFAIAC without having to know they are Islamic, but the person who wants to outlaw being gay can't do so, AFAIAC, also without my knowing their religion.

But in the formation of public policies it is the power of the interest group that makes the difference. It is the religion acting as an interest group that matters, IMO. IOW the politician looks at their political power and plays to that.

Originally posted by JS357
But in the formation of public policies it is the power of the interest group that makes the difference. It is the religion acting as an interest group that matters, IMO. IOW the politician looks at their political power and plays to that.

Which is in my opinion wrong. I believe democracy should never be used when it comes to deciding rules that affect only a minority. So when gay people want equal rights, they should use the law and the constitution, not public opinion - and public opinion should not be allowed to override the law and the constitution. It is in my opinion a failure of democracy that so many countries have laws about gay people that have been enacted via democratic process.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I was wondering today as I was watching someone from a town that is passing
a law requiring gun ownership for every head of household that had a few outs
in it, one if you were forbidden by law from owning a gun due to a felony, or for
religious reasons didn’t want to own one, there were other reasons for not
owning one….but I was wondering about Atheis ...[text shortened]... claim religious excepting to
anything thrown at them by law that was written by anyone?
Kelly

Aside from the asssinine law requiring ALL citizens to be armed, what has that got to do with atheism? Are you saying someone who objects to that law would then be forced to invoke some kind of religion card to keep from having to buy a gun?

I think it more likely an atheist would just refuse to buy a gun based on his or her own sense of morality. You are the one that wants to corner atheism to be just another religion.

I think atheists will vehemently disagree with that assessment.

It is clear having a gun in the house increases the chance of an accidental gun death 20 fold over not having a gun in the house unless it is under lock and key in a gun cabinet and the owner has complete control of the key.

So just on that reckoning, governments shouldn't be forcing people to arm themselves.

For one thing, if a terrorist attacks a crowd with an AK47, the first problem is not many people are so comfortable with guns as to be able to calmly draw down on someone, since 99.99999% of all gun owners never shot at a human before and the most likely outcome of that would be the would-be savior will just get shot along with the rest and many people would die in such a situation in spite of everyone in the room possessing weapons.

Think about it, what chance would anyone have say with 50 people in an open square outside and someone with an AK starts firing. That gun can shoot hundreds of rounds per minute and usually the shooter has extra clips. He can just run the gun around like a water hose and gun down dozens of people before anyone with just a handgun could even get it out of their purse or pocket or holster, however they want to carry it. Not many people are quick draw artists and most people would be fumbling around trying to get at their weapon and then just be mowed down with everyone else.

You see the occasional professional guard pull out his pistol in a couple of seconds when under attack but those kind of people are few and far between.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Are you saying someone who objects to that law would then be forced to invoke some kind of religion card to keep from having to buy a gun?

As I pointed out, the laws surrounding conscientious objection would almost certainly apply, and there is no requirement to be a member of a religion.
I would certainly object to being forced to buy a gun. I agree with you that it dramatically increases the chance of accidental shootings and is insignificant in deterring crime.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Aside from the asssinine law requiring ALL citizens to be armed, what has that got to do with atheism? Are you saying someone who objects to that law would then be forced to invoke some kind of religion card to keep from having to buy a gun?

I think it more likely an atheist would just refuse to buy a gun based on his or her own sense of morality. You a ...[text shortened]... stol in a couple of seconds when under attack but those kind of people are few and far between.

"Aside from the asssinine law requiring ALL citizens to be armed, what has that got to do with atheism? Are you saying someone who objects to that law would then be forced to invoke some kind of religion card to keep from having to buy a gun? "

If I read TW's explanation of the OP correctly, the question is whether atheists feel discriminated against by not having a religion card to play if they object to mandatory gun possession. This is a larger question. I think it is undeniable that many societies give preferential treatment in their laws and customs to the people of one religion over others, and give preferential treatment to people of religion (of the approved sorts) over people of no religion.

But my objection is that these favored groups aren't acting as religions when they seek and obtain favorable treatment from government or society. It isn't the religion card, it is the power bloc card. They are acting as political interest groups. So it is up to the non-religious to form, join, or influence groups that approach issues from a secular perspective, such as the ACLU. Not that they should seek to reverse the situation in their own favor, but just to make the playing field level.