These Are the Five Things I Believe Will Most Affect Atheists in 2014 January 4, 2014

These Are the Five Things I Believe Will Most Affect Atheists in 2014

The video below, part of The Atheist Voice series, reveals the five stories that I think will most affect atheists in 2014:

We’d love to hear your thoughts on the project — more videos will be posted soon — and we’d also appreciate your suggestions as to which questions we ought to tackle next!


Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I have gelato
  • Jim Chambers

    Your username got me excited, I like gelato. 😉

  • A3Kr0n

    What would you like to see updated? That there are also Christians that fight for a secular government? That could make a good topic for a future video.

  • I have gelato

    “There’s no reason it should be Atheists leading the charge all the time”

    If you follow the links you’ll find Baptists leading the charge in having the commandments removed in Oklahoma.

  • viaten

    I like seeing other religious groups asking to put their displays in public areas, but I hope in the end, secularists, religious or not, say “enough is enough” and put an end to it except for allowing secular displays applicable to everyone.

  • Well, I think that’s the main reason most of these other groups are requesting public displays. To force the issue, not because they really want to spend their money for displays.

  • Once again, we have atheism misrepresented. The issue has nothing to do with atheism. It is secularists leading the charge, and secularists are not atheists. Secularists are found in all religious cultures.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    tl; dv.

    If you want people to watch your video on Teh Interwebz, keep it under 90 seconds.

  • quasibaka

    wtf is wrong with you ? Either you are kidding, a troll or a f*&king retard.

    90 seconds for a video – I don’t know where to start …

    http://twitc.com/twitc_files/gallery/Twitters/92328919/adverts1/sir_i_m_going_to_ask_you_to_leave_the_internet_you_re_just_too_stupid.jpg

  • If churches want to put up religious displays, they should do that on their own property. It never ceases to amaze me that the folks who bitch and moan about not being able to have the city put up a nativity scene at taxpayer expense don’t put one up of their own. Meanwhile the liberal churches all have religious displays of their own in front of their churches. It’s the right-wingers who want the state to pay for their religious expression and they would scream the loudest if another religious tried to do that. They scream persecution but if they really believed their kind of religion was being persecuted they’d be for separation of church and state which they aren’t.

  • Neko

    Who misrepresented? Mehta invited the comment by saying “There’s no reason it should be Atheists leading the charge all the time.”

  • Bruce Martin

    In the Greece v G case, I bet the Catholics on the Supreme Court will say that prayer is ok because it is meaningless. And then every Christian will celebrate that the USA officially believes that prayer is meaningless.
    We will need people to ask govt bodies why they spend time on something meaningless. Unfortunately, religious people are comfortable with double talk, by definition.

  • Cake

    Blame Vine.

  • ChristianGuest

    A “fucking retard” huh. So I guess you have a probably with mentally disabled folks? Real cool, asswipe.

  • ChristianGuest

    *problem

  • Jordan

    Your last 3 words are what matter. A recent polling (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/06/christianity-state-religion_n_3022255.html) suggested that about 1 in 3 Americans support a constitutional amendment establishing Christianity as the official state religion (46% of Repubs, and 26% of Dems). In my opinion this was the most under-reported and scariest statistic of 2013.

  • Jordan

    Thankfully, the majority of Christians in this county still support the separation of church and state. The Justices’ Catholicism is not necessarily the driving force in their decisions. I think it will go 5-4 with Justice Kennedy being the deciding vote against the town (Justice Sotomayor is also Catholic and she will almost surely vote against the town). J. Kennedy has made statements in the past about this, and I think ruling against would be consistent with them.

  • Jordan

    However, I might add (for the likely zero people reading this) that a ruling against the town may not be such a big win. The respondents were arguing that “non-sectarian prayer” is constitutional, and sectarian prayer is not. The respondents should have been arguing against all prayer. If the Court rules that non-sectarian prayer is constitutional, it may end up causing a flood of litigation with politically motivated district and state court judges ruling on the factual question of whether or not the practice by each individual town was sectarian or not.

    I hope that the Court will take a strong position and rule against all prayer, or at the very least we get a strong dissenting or concurring opinion taking that position.

  • Neko

    That is shocking!

  • A3Kr0n

    Most people who I know are Christians, and they support church/state separation. Would I be making too bold a statement to say most Christians support it?

  • tl;cw;

    5 Atheist ‘churches’
    4 Humanist Chaplains in the military
    3 Other groups join the pushback against Christian privilege, e.g. monuments on government property (see Hindus and Satanists)
    2 possibility of atheist politicians winning, or at least having a shot
    1 Greece v. Galloway

    My complaint Hemant is with #3. I know it’s always portrayed as an atheist issue, but we both know there are other groups that have been fighting for SOCAS. Jehovah’s Witnesses made the pledge optional for school children in ’47(?). Santa Fe v. Doe was brought by Mormons and Roman Catholics. I could go on. I know you know this, but I think you should have emphasized that it only being an atheist issue is purely public perception. The reality has long been that there are a significant number of theists who strongly support SOCAS.

    I would perhaps add a #6, FFRF has won the parsonage exemption tax fight for now, but they have more cases on the docket. I think we’re going to see more clarity and secular values (for want of a better phrase) applied to the tax code.

    Oh, and #7, come late November, we’ll have another installment in our annual War on Christmas! (yawn)

    Oh, and editing again- 2014’s National Day of Reason, in response to the National Day of Prayer, is going to be a big item- probably bigger than the Reason Rally.

    (and since I’ve already edited this a bazillion times, I now see I’m mostly echoing “I have gelato” Sorry IHG, I first saw this on my phone and got all excited and went to my PC to comment before reading all the other comments)

  • viaten

    That’s probably true. But I not sure how many groups explicitly say that, or how many Christian groups take it that way. But I suspect many Christian groups will try to spin to their advantage what the other groups are doing. I suspect the smarter ones know what’s going on.

  • MN Atheist

    Probably because they would rather have no public monument at all than a monument from another religion or atheism…People might see them and look into new things!

  • PrimateZero

    Hoping for more atheists in government won’t mean shit if they belong to our one party system pretending to be a two party system. Democrat or Republican,…believer or nonbeliever, …nothing of any real meaning will get done in Congress.
    I’m foolishly holding out for more alternate party candidates in 2014 to challenge the status quo, despite their beliefs or lack of.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    It’s good to see irony is not lost on you. As a comeback to my call for brevity, you post a captioned meme image that takes < 5 seconds to read and appreciate. As your reward, here is an instructional video on brevity that takes up 6:13

  • quasibaka

    Hi buddy ,
    the terms idiot and moron were used as politically correct terms to denote people with intellectually disabled . Later they used mentally retarded . Now even that has become taboo .Then came ‘Special needs’ which also become a derogatory term.

    I am a med student and I sure as hell don’t insult the patients by calling them retards . They have real problems , unlike entitled internet keyboard warriors .

    So unless you are implying that Gubbabumpkin is mentally disabled , I don’t see why I can’t call him a ‘f*%king retard’ …

    PS : If you know a good alternative please reply 🙂

  • You are taking a term used to describe a medical condition and using it as an epithet. That implies that people with the actual condition have some to be ashamed of. How about ‘ignoramt’ instead.

  • It’s kind of like using ‘gay’ as a general purpose insult. It implies that being gay is worthy of insult.

  • I have gelato

    Luckily you can listen to the Oklahoma Atheists Godcast and hear the guy speak for himself.

    https://ia700302.us.archive.org/21/items/GODCAST/AOK/2014-01-01_-_AOK_099.mp3