Atheist's need not apply

I saw the employment discrimination law poster at work today. You’ll find it posted at every workplace that has employees in the USA. It says it is illegal hiring practice to discriminate based on “race”, “sex”, “religion”…yes religion!

Now I got to thinking about all the arguments put forth that try to say atheism is “not” a religion. Okay, it’s not a religion. It’s not even a belief (a creed). So it does not qualify as something that’s protected under civil rights law in the workplace.

So, if some employer says “I don’t want an atheist working for me” that is not a violation of employment law. Agree? It would not be like saying “I don’t want a catholic working here”, or, “I don’t want a jew working here”. because those are “religions” and atheism is not a religion. Right? So, atheism does not qualify for protection in the workplace the way minority religions are protected.

Atheism is not a religion or creed, so it is not protected under the civil rights act in the workplace.

Agree, atheists? You must agree because, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Good luck on that one. Atheists love having their cake and trying to eat it too.

What about people in non-theistic religions that identify as atheist? There are plenty of them. The answer is obvious, but the first step is to get one’s foot in the door.

You can’t discriminate based on religion. This includes having a religion and NOT having one. Discrimination against an atheist for being an atheist is religiously motivated, and illegal. Unfortunatly this sort of thing happens all the time and is swept under the rug.

What makes religious people so special that they get to have their cake and eat it to, but non-religious people dont get to have cake and eat too?

What do you mean unfortunatley? I don’t want some godless amoral whack job putting brakes on my car, or preparing my food.

The Texas Constitution specifically denies atheists the right to run for any office. You must believe in a Supreme being. Interesting specific discrimination

On the books, you may be right, but if any institution tried to apply that understanding of religion, the laws would instantly be struck down. The US Supreme Court has issued decisions that stated that “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion,” and that “neither a state nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another,” (Wiki) which is precedent enough to challenge any attempt to descriminate against someone for being an atheist.

Kris, you’re right, but that law cannot be enforced. The only reason it still stands is because it is ignored. It would certainly be overturned if it were implemented.

Atheism is a deceptive term, and it wrongly used by most. There’s no person in the world who does not hold any beliefs which is what is implied with the term atheist. Someone who does not hold the notion that God exists close to heart, i.e. believe it, will without a shadow of a doubt have some other beliefs, so why not call them that? What’s the point of labeling them something they’re not as a noun? It would make sense if the term atheism were only used as an adjective as in the form of atheistic. As in “Communists hold atheistic beliefs.”

My point, which I’ve hammered time and time again in other topics, though it remains ignored, is that for the same reason there are no people who are nihilists (for very long anyways), there are no people who are atheists. There are, however people who hold atheistic beliefs, but that is a whole other animal…Confucianism, Taoists, some Buddhists, empiricists, Darwinists, communists, et cetera.

So, to answer your question: your questions is meaningless; it includes nobody. An employer won’t face the problem because the person’s in question do not live (for longer than a couple days anyways).

Saying that someone who “holds atheistic beliefs” is not an atheist is like saying that someone who holds theistic beliefs is not a theist. Communists are atheists, so are Confucianism, Taoists, some Buddhists, empiricists, Darwinists," in so far as they deny (strong) or doubt (weak) the existence of god.

Dear God,

I promise to start believing in you if you would only smite threads like this.



Again, an atheist is a wholly useless term when there are ideas a person surely does actually champion for which an employer could then refuse employment.

A person is never solely an atheist. All people believe something, and an employer could not refuse service to someone solely atheist, because no such persons exist. That employer would hence be refusing employment to a Buddhist, or a communist, or whatever, though never to someone who’s only characteristic is that they do not hold dear one idea.

What sense is there in splitting the world’s population into either theist or atheist? What’s an atheist if theism ceases to exist?

Ignored or stored? Many laws seem to be largely ignored but infact remain stored for if and when the need arises to implement it. And since it is The Republic of Texas and is only a state by treaty, it does not need to acknowledge the Federal Supreme court. California is the a state by treaty and I think Alaska is too. Now Washington D.C. is its own country. I just love looking up laws constitutions and such, you find so many interesting hidden facts and loopholes.

You would be amazed at how many laws that seem like they should be overturned will not be, because of old precedent cases and because simply it is a law that can not be misinterpreted. Many laws are kept on the books for possible future need. This is true for federal on down to towns. This is why reading and comprehension is so important. If you don’t know the laws you can’t fight the law.

Erlir, people aren’t solely black or gay or female either, but people still discriminate against them based on that characteristic. Whatever else a person may be, they can be discriminated against for one characteristic, including atheism.

Kris, Texas, California, and Alaska all answer to federal law, whether they are states by treaty or otherwise. The same goes for DC. They may technically be sovereign, but they function as parts of the larger whole, both within the US and in relation to other nations.
I know you distrust the government from other threads, but I think historically laws like those banning atheists from office are merely vestigial. Not too long ago, a similar sort of law was declared unconstitutional, I believe in Texas: A law banning sodomy. The law had sat unenforced for years, and was rejected when it was applied. Similarly, if someone was actually barred from office for being an atheist, there would be a challenge and the state would almost surely lose. Maybe Texas is holding the law in its back pocket for a day when the SCOTUS is heavily conservative, but by the going interpretation of the constitution the law is unenforceable.

I don’t mistrust the Gov’t I mistrust those people within the gov’t.

They are not subject to the Government. They only condone through mass ignorance of the people and the leaders.

You see as long as anyone holds a Social Security number they are citizens of Washington D.C. There are other loopholes that the The Federal D.C. Government uses to ensure that you have no legal right to go against the Soveriegn country of Washington D.C.

Dear faust,

This is God speaking.

I’ve been trying to eliminate a lot of threads here but there’s this damn ungodly virus infecting my PC and Microsoft has made an exclusive legality with me to withhold its patented antiviral software unless I sign a waiver of exchange between our corporate power.

IBM with the power of God? Can you imagine the glitches? Forget it.

Looks like I was asking the wrong God.

Dear Mr Gates,

Could you please smile down upon the land, and separate politics from philosophy?

Thank you in advance,


ps. If i’m good, when I die, do I go to Seattle? And if I’m bad, do I go to France?

What’s up with the cake?

Well erlir do have a point I do think there is no such thing as pure atheist because unless you cease to think and reflect.

Do atheists really believe that they believe on nothing. So what is nothing that they are so fond about?

Then again one self-proclaimed atheist will say that the reason he lives is to be satisfied on his existence without a hope for the after-life.


But that is not pure atheism that is just a form of egoism or hedonism. Hence no pure atheist can ever exist per se. He will always create a substitute to the vacuum that most people fill with a kind of deity.

Yeah right. Atheism is the refusal to believe in the unmoved mover, to the uncaused cause, to the necessary being. If you believe one way or another to any of the three but still contest that that being is not conscious, not Yahweh not what ever the name is not the issue.

A true atheist is the refusal to accept the reality of the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause and the necessary being that we call in layman’s term as God.

Meaning? I would love to hear your rebuttal. If you have one.

What ideas can it be said atheists do actually hold dear, Tortoise? In other words, when you call someone an atheist, what ideas are you insinuating that person champions?

Here is how I define a theist and an atheist.
I call a theist that person who holds the notion God[s] exists in high esteem.
I call an atheist that person that does not hold the notion God[s] exists in high esteem.

So, to bring this thread back on topic… To whom would an employer be refusing employment? Because if it is someone who is not simply a person who does not hold the notion God exists in high esteem, but in fact someone who holds atheistic notions, then would not the employer be refusing service to somebody who is more than an atheist and would it not be prudent to call them that - a communist or Taoist perhaps, instead of just play ol’ atheist? Furthermore, can and do there exist such people living today who’s only defining characteristic is that they do not champion one certain notion, which is what an atheist is? Obviously, no. All people hold dear certain notions by which to label them appropriately, and as such the category atheist becomes so useless it should, as I’ve been saying in this topic, just be used as an adjective.