Talk:Discrimination against atheists/Archive 1

Persecution of atheists was merged into this article: See old talk-page here

"In God We Trust" and "Under God"
This article should mention the controversies about the pledge of allegiance and the national motto In God We Trust in the United States.

Title
Shouldn't it be Discrimination AGAINST atheists - instead of "of"? Otherwise it could mean how well atheists discriminate, or even how to discriminate (tell apart) atheists from others--JimWae 19:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I got an edit conflict after typing the text below. An amazing bit of "GMTA"--Fuhghettaboutit 19:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

By all means, change the title. I created this page in a hurry because of a decision made in the Persecution of atheists article that didn't follow through due to neglect. I support the Discrimination against atheists idea. In fact, I'm changing it right now. Starghost (talk | contribs) 21:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Malformed title?
The title doesn't ring right in the context of the subject matter. I would expect, given the current title the article, for it to be about atheists' ability to make fine distinctions between choices. "Atheists are very discriminating when it comes to furniture selection." It may technically be idiomatically correct but I think we need to be a bit more discriminating. I suggest "Discrimination toward atheists".--Fuhghettaboutit 19:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I like Jimwae's suggestion better and second "Discrimination against atheists."--Fuhghettaboutit 19:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we should get this title changed. --Walther Atkinson 03:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... --Dannyno 22:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Shh. Someone linked to the old title, and I wasn't paying attention.  --Walther Atkinson 06:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

about Atheism in Sweden
The fact that the Swedish law of royal succesion legaly discriminate atheists is true, but it's in the same time two-edgeed - all non-protestants are excluded from the Swedish Throne. The law wasn't inforced to ban athesist from the swedish throne but other christians than protestants i.e catholics. The most famous example is probably Queen Kristina Vasa, who was forced to abdicate before she could be recieved in the Roman Catholic Church.


 * While I can't speak to this particular issue, it looks to me like most of the examples in this page aren't really cases of discrimination against atheists at all. An official state church seems more like a case of preferential treatment for one group than discrimination against others; even if you characterize it as discrimination against a group it's more like discrimination against everyone who's not a member of that particular church than discrimination against atheists.  Similarly with having a priest from a particular faith deliver a sermon at public school graduation.  And preferential funding for religious groups is discrimination against the non-religious, not discrimination against atheists.  I know scads of atheists who are members of religious groups that don't require belief in God, like Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalism, liberal American Quakerism, or most types of Buddhism; the Church of Satan even seems to be a genuine religious group with atheism as an official tenet.


 * In other words, it strikes me as highly POV to characterize every arguable violation of church-state separation as "discrimination against atheists." And I say this as an irreligious atheist. Elliotreed 20:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If this article is about discrimination explicitely directed against atheists, I suggest a change of title. Also the discrimination against e.g. Charles Bradlaugh should be excluded, as those examples are also discrimination against e.g. muslims. /Benzocaine 19:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the Bradlaugh case is that it was a case of discrimination against atheists. However, the bit about the Swedish monarchy touches atheists only because atheists are not Lutherans, and it is pretty trivial anyway, so I have boldly removed that paragraph.--OinkOink 02:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not trivial that the constitution states that the state chief must be a protestant christian. As Sweden is a constitutional monarchy, the king is the official state chief. It is a clear case of discrimination. Who decides what is discrimination or not? I feel very discriminated indeed about these laws which make non-christians such as myself secondary citizens. /Benzocaine 17:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is also discriminary to atheist members of the royal family who are not eligible to become kings or queens. /Benzocaine 17:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Bush Atheism Citizenship Quote
"'In the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign, Republican presidential candidate George H. W. Bush reportedly said, 'I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.' [2]'" Is there any further documentation for the Bush quote cited above (and in this article)? The only citation I can find anywhere is at robsherman.com, where he states: "The entire Chicago political press corps was there, along with members of the White House press corps and national news reporters, but no reporter thought that this anti-atheist bigotry was sufficiently newsworthy to do anything with it, other than me." This claim seems highly suspicious to me, considering that such an outrageous statement would seem certain to be documented elsewhere. If robsherman.com is the only source, I would suggest that this citation should be removed for insufficient documentation. --Atanamis 16:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This was posted at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html at one time. The material is apparently no longer there but may provide some places to look:

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George H.W. Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?" GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me." RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?" GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?" GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists." UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were still angry over the remarks.

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois) from forcing his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States as "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation took place:

RS: "American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?" EM: "It's bullshit." RS: "What is bullshit?" EM: "Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit." RS: "Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue." EM: "You're welcome."

After Bush's election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking him to retract his statement. On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President, replied on White House stationery that Bush substantively stood by his original statement, and wrote:

"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government.

I also found this source through this entry at wikiquote.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So far we have allegations from Robert I. Sherman, who claims that a horde of other reporters who were there just ignored it, and someone from the organization American Atheists. (And we're to believe that the New York Times and everyone else but the Boulder Daily Camera and Free Inquiry ignored this?) However, there is a lacuna in the bit from American Atheists.  Rather than quoting the letter so we can see whether C. Borden Gray confirmed the quotation, it just says Gray says Bush "substantively stood by his original statement".  And why was this removed from infidels.org if the quote did not turn out to be bogus? This is just the sort of stuff they love most to display.  Without better sourcing, this should be removed.
 * Furthermore, this alleged quote is not shown to be relevant to the topic of discrimination against atheists. Without a demonstration of relevance to the topic, this material should be removed. --OinkOink 22:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Infidels hasnt really fully removed it from their website, you can check it here:. As for relevance, I guess it's self evident that when a group is not considered a part of citizenry in a country, that's a clear example of discrimination. While that's not the case, having a chief of state affirm something like that is certainly notable. Starghost (talk | contribs) 01:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If a group of people are actually stripped of their citizenship, that goes beyond discrimination; it is persecution. Thus ethnic Eritreans in Ethiopia who have been stripped of their citizenship are persecuted.  But here there is no connection given to any actual acts of discrimination or persecution.    The issue is not whether this is notable in some unspecified context, but whether it is both true and germane to discrimination against atheists.  Both qualifications are in doubt.
 * I had heard of this quote before, and I was amazed that it was so poorly sourced. The only sources are obscure and partisan, though the statement allegedly was made in front of a mob of reporters.  If it is indeed true, better sources must be available.--OinkOink 04:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but infidels is pretty widely quoted around wikipedia, I dont think this particular subject really stands out among all of the others. Still though, you can never have enough good sources. I do hear this quote all the time though, so it's notable enough to be mentioned in any form, since if it was a hoax perhaps that should also be made clear. Maybe the sources are mostly partisan because indeed, in the context of mainstream press and political agenda, atheists really aren't nearly as vocal some people would expect them to be from looking at internet debates. All I can say is, like most of the article, this section needs to be developed, and I believe removing content on the soft premises of "poor" sourcing (I do believe, looking at other articles, that this statement is well sourced-enough to be in a GA, although the rest of the article isnt) wouldn't improve it's quality so much as being counter-productive. Starghost (talk | contribs) 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Widely quoted isn't the same as accurate - there are many famous films (e.g. Casablanca) that are in fact widely misquoted. (E.g. "Play it again, Sam" wasn't said.) Likewise, I would not be surprised if the same holds true for journalism. As the quote comes from a partisan source and I've yet to see context for it, either. (Was the journalist hassling the President with petty questions?) Lest anyone take this as an anti-atheist tirade, I am an atheist, albeit one who is quite cynical about organisations that claim to speak for nonbelievers or to stand up for them. Autarch (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that there are two slightly different versions of this quote, with "nor should they be regarded as patriots" vs. "nor should they be regarded as patriotic". The former is the more commonly quoted version (as by Fuhghettaboutit above) and it seems to be the original version of the quote (I found it on Usenet as far back as Jan. 1989), however the latter is the version posted on the Rob Sherman site and he is the reporter who originally reported it. So, should we use the "patriots" or the "patriotic" version of this quote? We are currently using the latter. -- HiEv 18:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I can give you a literary reference, just gives the same story, but lends more credibility to the quote : Robert I. Sherman Free Inquiry 8: 4, Fall 1988, 16. One objection to this source though- Sherman didn't use a tape recorder. He could just be fibbing, but one hopes 'journalistic integrity" still meant something back in the 80's. Microphotographer

Links with George H. W. Bush quote on atheists
http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

[*]For all practical purposes, that is only a single source, as the wikiquote article only gives Rob Sherman as a source.Ricree101 08:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote also appears in Onner Joanm,ed., Atheist's Bible, The, 

--Ernstk (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Some more links
These links say how you can order a printed version of the original article(s):


 * http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm
 * http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html#bush

/Benzocaine 17:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Merge
I suggest "Discrimination against atheists" and "Persecution of atheists" be merged into one article. I recognize the difference between Persecution and Discrimination however, being that these articles compliment eachother I think a merge would be beneficial. Also, both articles are very short and are not very informative on their own. Just a thought, I do not mind completing the merge if it is approved by the community.


 * Do realize that this article was in fact, in almost its entirety, present in the Persecution article not long ago. The editors agreed in the discussion there splitting the articles was the best way to go for several reasons which you can find in the discussion there. 200.168.138.59 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination and persecution are separate topics and do not belong together. For example, when women in the US were not allowed to vote, they were discriminated against, but not persecuted. --OinkOink 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Situation in Germany
I am planning on adding a section about Germany, specifically concerning §166 StGB, a federal law prohibiting blashphemy that is "apt to cause a disturbance of the peace". Under this law, theatre-plays have been censored, and every outspoken atheist can theoretically be punished where his actions or words can (excuse the formulation) make religious nuts angry enough to get violent. Furthermore, the Federal Republic of Germany violates the constitutionally guaranteed neutrality by financing religious education, which is mandatory in Bavaria and other states unless the parents or the children themselves when they are older than 14 officially request not to have to visit religous education, in which case they have to take a course in ethics. Atheism is further discriminated in Bavaria since you can choose an advanced course in religious education for your "Abitur" (the final exams of the "Gymnasium", which -when passed- allow you to visit a university), but not in Ethics, which is only available as a basic course. Also, the church has the right to appoint and relieve of duty professors for theology at PUBLIC universities. Also, the state collects church-tax from every member of the church, and you have to officially leave the church to be exempted from paying this tax since with baptism you automatically become a member of the church. In some states you even have to pay a fee to be exempted from paying this tax. Several parties and organisations (even the largest parties nowadays, the CDU/CSU) in actions and words discriminate atheists. There are further discriminations against atheists in Germany, which I will not list now. However, I would be grateful for assistance in collecting information and structuring an addition. 84.56.110.103 15:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)MikeB

Wow, that's amazing. I never knew Germany was like that. how reprehensible. Anyway, I'd love to help, but as a stupid American I wouldnt have the first clue as to where to look for citations for german federal law. let me know how I can help otherwise though. VanTucky 17:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, in everyday life it is practically impossible that anyone be persecuted according to $166. You can say whatever you want. But a few years ago someone wanted to perform a theater-play about Frank Zappa in which religion was to be lampooned by Zappa having a "revelation" where "god" appears to him as a talking toilet-seat with a halo... :-) - the churches invoked §166 and the state ruled that the play mustn't be performed because it was apt to "cause a disturbance of the peace". The things about education bug me most - I HAD to visit religious education until I reached 8th grade, and since I grew up (and still live) in bavaria, I could not choose an advanced course in Ethics for my Abitur. Furthermore, I do not see how the state has the right to use my tax-payings to fincance theology-faculties at public universities. I do not see why the sate should have the right to rule that no loud music may be played on easter in any bar, disco etc because it is the most sacred christian holiday... etc. Another very telling incident happened just last year: The BfG (something like the German part of the International League of Non-Religious and Atheists) wanted to gain public awareness for the fact that the catholic church was heavily in league with Hitler and his fascist regime by having two people dresses as Hitler and a roman catholic bishop walk the streets of Munich together on the anniversary of the day when Hitler and the Vatican signed their first treaty (Reichskonkordat). Of course the state (Bavaria) had the demonstration prohibited and arrested the two dressed up men... the flyers they wanted to give out to the people - informing them of the allegiance of Vatican with Hitler - were confiscated!... well, at least in Germany, being an atheist doesn't practically exclude you from running for a political office - oh, of course with the exception of Bavaria, that is. :) Anyway - thanks for your sympathy - it is deeply appreciated. 84.56.67.46 20:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC) MikeB

Boy Scout Part
The part about the Boy Scouts of America not allowing atheists is either out of date or completely incorrect. A large portion of my troop is atheist, including several adults. I suggest it be removed or corrected. Crimsonn Draycko 13:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Crimsonn Draycko


 * Do you have a citation that proves otherwise? I havent seen any statement on the Scouts site about a non-discriminatory policy when it comes to religion. VanTucky 17:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The main boy scouts article cites controversy over scouts and leaders being denied membership for being atheist or agnostic. VanTucky 17:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The official policy of BSA is that all members must profess a belief in a supreme being.    You guys would do well to keep it quiet from your council. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 17:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Reasons
I think that section 3 should be deleted entirely. I have seen no reasons that justify discrimination against atheists other than those that come out of mere ignorance. For example, Anti-Christian discrimination doesn't have any kind of justification section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Major reword - opening paragraph.
We had 3x citation required for quite bland statements but then I had read the Anti-Christian_discrimination article and felt that fitted too (in fact the Anti-Christian_discrimination article opening sentences would fit for any discrimination against beliefs as it is a generic list of claims. As the Anti-Christian_discrimination article didn't have citation needed tags it was thus easier to work with that as a new foundation. Ttiotsw 07:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Major reorg - Country headings.
I have reorganised the countries but added no new text. Insert new countries alphabetically. Please expand. If you plan to work on a new country entry and don't want to duplicate your efforts then please add the country name to this section and sign your name. Once the country is added by you then ideally please remove your name (or anyone else should strike out your entry from here) OK ?;
 * Saudi Arabia Ttiotsw 07:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Slight change
I put the word "some" in the sentence formerly "Atheists claim that this violates secularism and therefore is discriminating against atheism" in the Sweden section, because it's fairly obvious not all atheists would hold the same viewpoint on that issue. Just thought I'd actually edit Wiki for once, xD 199.126.134.144 04:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Atheist and Agnostic Discrimination in the USA
An atheist or an agnostic can be President in the USA ? According to their legislation, the President needs to do a religious oath with is hand on the Bible. For some reason, despite 14 % of atheists and agnostics, there´s just a single atheist in the american Congress, and also a lot of religious fakes in american politics. Not even the american Catholic Church seems nowdays very worried with that.Mistico (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Lameness of this Article
Isn't the article currently appallingly lame? The examples of discrimination are the religious test to be a Swedish monarch, some inoperative religious tests fossilized in US state constitutions, and the American Boy Scouts' ban on atheists. Only the last is even worth mentioning, but it is still not very significant. The real problem here is that the article only deals with the comtemporary US and Sweden, where there is no noteworthy discrimination against atheists. A substantial article on discrimination against atheists will have to look around the world and into history. There's a lot of material around, but currently this article just sounds like whining by people who really want to feel persecuted. --OinkOink 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean discriminated ;) .I think its fairly obvious that the article is lacking. It doesnt hurt to point it out, yet I guess starting a flamewar by saying the editors are whiny people who want to be persecuted wont achieve much. Starghost (talk | contribs) 02:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The pithiest comment I can make is that a lot of the examples are pretty petty. Autarch (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I sounded that way; I'm definitely not trying to start a flamewar, but I lack diplomatic skills. I do feel this article is quite substandard and parochial. With all the countries in the world to look at for examples of discrimination against atheists, this article picks only the USA and Sweden. To anybody who thinks for a few minutes about the position of atheists in places like Pakistan or Indonesia, this sounds pretty trivial. "But they won't let me be king of Sweden! Discrimination!" --OinkOink 16:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Looks like this article needs that globalize tag or whatever. Starghost (talk | contribs) 22:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added the tag. --OinkOink 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely the fact that there is *any* discrimination in Sweden or the USA on something so trivial as religion is enough to warrant an article in the first place? Henners91 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Victorian England
I've added a stubby Victorian England section, with a mention of Charles Bradlaugh's problems in Parliament. The main Charles Bradlaugh article has more information. Obviously, there is much more to do here. The religious tests in education are an important topic. Victorian England was a watershed as the first truly modern society, and it was also a watershed in the status of atheists. I hope historically sophisticated wikipedians will see fit to expand this section. --OinkOink 00:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've corrected your initial entry, because it was misleading. Bradlaugh asked for affirmation, because atheists had recently been able to do so in courts of law. Parliament denied this. Bradlaugh then said that in that case he would take the oath. But, since he was an outspoken atheists, he wasn't permitted to do that either. That was the origin of the struggle.  --Dannyno 12:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction. --OinkOink 15:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not complaining, but it seems odd to have a Victorian example on a page otherwise filled with present day examples. Need I remind you that the British head of state is STILL legally required to be Church of England? GMPinkElephant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.175.208 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused over something.
I'm confused over something in this section. I read somewhere in the main "discrimination against atheist" article, where someone mentioned discriminating against them as "religious intolerance"? How can it be a religion and atheism at the same time? Isn't Atheism an ABSENCE of religion? KellyLeighC (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a matter of definition here. If you define religious persecution as persecution due to religious reasons correctly, persecution of atheists is covered by that, same for discrimination. If you were an Atheists in, say early 17th century England and said that out loudly, you definitely would get trouble! But this needs to be worked into the article. Zara1709 (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The term religous intolerance is poorly formed in the first place. It conveys the meaning that that the intolerance is religous (i.e., based on religon), but does not conclude what it is an intolerance of; as opposed to intolerance of (a) religon. (a subtle, but important, difference). Since intolerance of religion can be brought about by religous intolerance, the phenomenon being described is easily muddled. --Ernstk (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Change the United States section to 'Atheist Protection in the United States'
I don't mean to sound abrasive, bit I agree with OinkOink above on the 'lameness' of at lest this section of the article. For discrimination, it lists a 'disapproval' rating in the U.S., a (too) long description of a quote by a former president, and the funding of the BSA. The remaining section describes a long list of how atheism has been PROTECTED in America. The only discrimination in this section are the listed state constitutions, and three of those six have been overturned (protecting atheism). It also gives a list of supreme court decisions that have further protected atheism. Is there any place in the United States to find true discrimination against atheist? You know, laws fobidding atheism, denying them government support, laws that socially separate them. Remember the old 'separate but equal' laws? THAT was true discrimination. To state that the BSA discriminates would be correct for this article. Giving tax money to the BSA may be wrong, but it is a stretch to call it discrimination. So what discrimination is there; three state constitutions (valid) and the BSA along with the Pledge of Allegiance (lame)Angncon (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Discrimination doesn't have to be state enforced in order to be discrimination. A Glass-ceiling is still discrimination. Just try to get elected to public office in the United States if you are an atheist and tell me how that turns out. And if some people talked about Jewish people publicly the same way I hear people talk about atheists all the time, there would be public outcry. Maybe a list of journalists who openly ridicule atheism would be a little less lame. I for instance generally only tell people I know relatively well already that I am an atheist, because I have learned what type of prejudice one can encounter. I can't count how many times people have told me that I am going to hell or that there is something morally wrong with me--from people who know next to nothing about me except that I am an atheist. And if you don't think that the having the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance (that is what I assume you meant by "lame"), how would you feel if your children were forced by their public school teachers to recite daily "There is no god but Allah"?--66.102.196.36 (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush's Faith-Based Initiative
Though this may be more fitting for discussion on separation of church and state in the U.S., it had important implications for atheists in the United States. Bush's Faith-Based Initiative, though it failed to pass through Congress, allowed all departments under the executive branch to give finances to religious organizations, most notably taking money away from secular, science-based drug rehab centers to give to Christian rehab centers. Being churches, these centers discriminate in employment and the whole situation is iffy in constitutionality, nevermind the fact that the money has been given solely to Christian organizations, with the exception of one "inter-faith" organization, despite the fact that many others have applied. Anyways, I'm not an expert on the subject but believe it might be relevant for this page if anyone wants to take up the task of inclusion. FluxFuser (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

MySpace Controversy
The deletion of the major Atheist group from MySpace might also deserve recognition on this page. See:  FluxFuser (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A "See also" to Atheist_and_Agnostic_Group perhaps if it could be shown that deleting the forum/site is recorded as discrimination ? Ttiotsw (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Assumption of Intention
The use of the phrase "On June 26, a Republican-dominated group of 100-150 congressmen stood outside the capital and recited the pledge - showing how much they disagreed with the decision." seems biased to me in that it suggests that the only possible goal of signaling is to show how one feels. A better version might be "and recited the pledge in opposition to the decision." I'd edit it myself but I don't edit much and I'd rather build a consensus. ChrisMR. 128.227.206.27 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

News article that might fit here
The following news article may fit in which the theme of this wikipedia article. Provided for your consideration:

--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 14:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote now deleted
George HW Bush's quote has now been deleted from the article but I don't see why - it's a pretty serious issue in the context of discrimination against atheists. It's not as if Rob Sherman was some nobody throwing around unsubstantiated allegations. He was the (invited) representative of American Atheist journal at the press corps covering GHW Bush and reported those comments in his capacity as journalist. It's pretty significant that neither Bush nor any of his spokespeople have ever denied the comments attributed to him, particularly when he was asked on several occasions by American Atheists to do so. The comments were also included in a campaign by American Atheists to Congress to end discrimination against atheists, so they were given a fair amount of publicity. Again, there was no response from Bush.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was deleted here on the grounds of WP:RS. Basically is the reference we have (Rob Sherman) reliable enough source ? Ttiotsw (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I added it back in. You have fallen for the same misunderstanding as the other editor at Separation of Church and State in the United States. That we included this information in WP does not mean that we are taking the statement to be true, it only means that this has been debated enough in the public to be notable. (I bet, Rob Sherman is pretty annoyed that he did use a tape recorder if Bush has actually said this. So the atheists are going to consider this to be true and Republicans won't.) Again, this is not an issue of wp:reliable sources. We've got enough reliable source that Bush 'is supposed to have said it. Zara1709 (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why have I fallen on this same misunderstanding ? I have no misunderstanding. I did not delete the reference but am just advising people here as to the grounds that whatever editor did delete it were. I spent 10 minutes going back over the history to get a feeling as to why it was dropped back in February and am just advising you of this. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I on my side misread your comment. It is only that I am still somehow annoyed about the controversy at Separation of Church and State in the US and I feared that I would get it all over again. So, apologies. Zara1709 (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is tax deduction a subsidy of religion in US??
In the USA anyone who makes a contribution to a religious organization (church, synagogue, mosque, etc) is entitled to a tax deduction. Is an equivalent deduction applicable for an organized atheistic, antireligious, or irreligious organization? If not, that is discrimination. Too Old (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as the charity in question is a nonprofit organization under US corporate law. AFAIK. Nonprofit status is what is used by religious organizations to get that benefit (among others). However there are certain criteria that must be upheld (which some churches skirt or outright break). For example, donations to the nontheistic Center for Inquiry are tax-deductible. . - Keith D. Tyler &para; 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical Discrimination
Currently there's a small section on Victorian Britain shoved under International Examples, I'm not entirely convinced that the 1800s are 'international'. Should we split this into historical attitudes to atheism and current ones? There must be shedloads to talk about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billsmith453 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Egypt section
The Egypt section is nice, but hardly complete, but is inappropriately titled. The massive, and lethal discrimination against atheists (e.g. a muslim cannot be punished for killing an atheist, is part of the Egyptian legal system), and is not at all unique to Egypt, but practiced in large parts of the middle east (in principle it is applied everywhere except israel and lebanon, in practice it is applied like this in at least lybia, egypt, saudi arabia, all gulf countries, and iran).

Also Egypt does not discriminate against christian converts (although these often get "special attention"), but against all muslims who (even claim to) leave islam.

The discrimination is about killing, but not limited there : inheritance law, children, property rights, taxes ... all these sections of the egyptian law are discriminatory against both atheists and members of other religions.

It should be mentioned that the killing of atheists merely for being atheists is an accepted part of islamic law, and that the origin of these rules lies there. By contrast, neither thoraic law nor canon law specify death penalties for atheists. Perhaps the parts of the quran that mention these acts could be pointed out ? 83.182.205.60 (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've got a problem with this section as it seems to be going off the topic - this article is on discrimination against atheists and as such should refer to specific examples concerning atheists. The Egypt section makes too many references to incidents concerning non-muslims and Christian converts which are not the same as atheists. The last paragraph on Mohammad Amin al-Husayni in particular seems irrelevant to this subject.  I've tagged the section because of these concerns.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The topic is the discrimination of atheists. The truth is that the quran directly calls for their extermination. That atheists share the fate of other converts from islam is not relevant to its inclusion in this article, but it ought to be mentioned. Furthermore the source of this discrimination is not "egypt", because it is hardly limited to Egypt at all. It should be mentioned that the source of this discrimination against all non-muslims, which also specifically targets atheists, is an essential part of islam, and is applied, in it's islamic form, in many (semi?) islamic nations as varied as malaysia, egypt and morocco. Turkey is thinking about re-introducing it. 83.182.213.121 (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. The problem I have is that this section becomes too general and makes some pretty sweeping statements about Islam and the Qu'ran.  I've got no problem with the first paragraph as it refers to a specific example but after that there are some pretty contentious points, such as  "massacres against non-Muslims were a very regular occurance and religiously sanctioned" - this sounds like a violation of NPOV as well.  Unless someone cares to reword it with citations to make it more neutral, my position is that it should be deleted.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be deleted, as it's simply true, we just need to add references. An example could be http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E4D9123DF934A1575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 which mentions a few of them. Or this book : http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Imperialism-History-Efraim-Karsh/dp/0300106033. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.233.202 (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This edit, reinserting material previously deleted, disingenuously offers as its summary "see talk", whereas the discussion argues that the material is "too general" as it applies to Christian converts and other non Muslims. All previous editors bar one (an IP editor but presumably the same individual) have removed it for lack of citation, irrelevance, massacres against other faiths not being discrimination against atheists, and so on. As the material keeps re-appearing, replaced by one IP editor and seemingly against the view of the majority of editors, I am proposing to apply for page protection, subject to other editors' views.  --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly in favour of page protection. It's gone on for too long now that that same paragraph keeps getting inserted, in spite of all the problems other editors have had with it.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Does American Legislation Discriminates Atheists and Agnostics Based in the Religious Oaths for the President and at the Courthouses
I´m from Portugal, but I have this idea from what I have read. I ask to any american wikipedian to prove here if the atheists and agnostics aren´t obliged to a religious oath if they were elected for the Presidency or in the courthouses, were as we all know, they have to do a religious oath, "so help me God".81.193.189.248 (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The US constitution does not require a candidate to say "so help me God," in the Oath of office of the President of the United States but it's unlikely that any politician who did not say it would hold office long due to the widespread social disapproval. According to that same article though, other federal positions do require one to say "so help me god." I think that would make an interesting debate in the supreme court as it seems to conflict with the no religious test clause. AzureFury (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that and showing that article. Many people from other countries, like me, believed the religious oath was compulsive for the Presidency. You still didn´t showed if atheists or agnostics don´t need to do the religious oath at trials. There is a "religious" political mentality in the USA that explains why it would be very difficult for a politician to assume himself of herself as an atheist or an agnostic. That explains, according with this site why most americans would rather vote for a gay (55 %) then for an atheist (36 %) for President, and there´s a single atheist or agnostic in the american Congress - I´m pretty sure there are many others "in the closet", and not even a single Governor claims to be an atheist or agnostic. That means something in a country were there is about 14 % of atheists and agnostics, and as we can see by Wikipedia there are plenty writers, scientists, intelectuals, celebrities, like everyhwere who are non religious. As everybody knows there´s also a lot of religious fakes in american politics, like those who claim to be Catholic and bless partial-birth abortion, that is a form of infanticide, like John Kerry. Nevertheless, I´m sure that it would have been almost impossible to be elected if he assumed himself as an atheist, wich many people believe he is, as many others. USA really discriminate non religious people due to the religious oaths.81.193.220.86 (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You're preachin' to the choir. Atheists are pretty much the only minority that it is still socially acceptable to discriminate against. AzureFury (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You do not have to swear to God in a U.S. court of law; they will allow an affirmation instead. However, in a practical sense, if this distinction is noticed, widespread prejudice against atheists may affect the efficacy of such testimony, so a lawyer might avoid putting someone with that objection on the stand. Marlon Brando once famously took the stand and was read the standard oath, to which he responded, "No, I do not," and began to digress on his disbelief in God, which prompted the judge to cut him off and tell him "We have another oath you can use". Technically though such an "oath" would not be an oath but an affirmation.

As for oaths of offices, many of the currently proscribed oaths do expressly contain a appeal to God, for senators, congresspeople, and even federal judges. As for the President, the Oath of office of the President of the United States is expressly stated in the Constitution, but it does not expressly include "So help me God", nor does it dictate the use of a Bible, but many of the presidents themselves have done these. (Some presidents swore in on two Bibles. I've no idea what that's meant to indicate.) Certainly this has become more true since the rise of Christian triumphalism following WWII and the Red Scare.

After the federal level, the oaths of offices of individual states are up to the states themselves. Many of the egregious states -- blatantly violating the Constitution which dictates that no test of religion may be required to take an office in the U.S. -- are listed in this article. HTH. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 20:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. It´s really fascinating to think that in Portugal, were I came from, the religious oath was abolished in 1910, after the proclamation of the republic, and was never reinstated, not even during the fascist regimen, the "New State" (1933-1974). During that time, the oath for the Presidency or at the courthouses didn´t have any reference to God, nor the single party 1933 Constitution. There was an oath for public office were the people had to swear that they weren´t communists, but it was like that : "I swear by my honour that I´m not a communist." We can see that all around Europe there are plenty non religious politicians, even in the far-right.213.13.242.234 (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have created So help me God to document when this phrase has been, or is still, in use in various countries. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"one of the most secularized countries in the world"
The article states that Sweden is "one of the most secularized countries in the world". It then goes on to explain how religion is affiliated with the government and is incorporated into law. By what standard is secularized? --142.68.161.244 (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the reference, also, it's "considered one of the most secularized countries in the world", so it's about perception. MantisEars (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a more concrete reference putting Sweden at either #1 or #2 (depending where it falls in the given range) in the list of non-religious countries. AzureFury (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

US discrimination
I think the US discrimination section is incomplete. I think this sentence should be removed: "American courts have regularly, if controversially, interpreted the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state as protecting the freedoms of non-believers, as well as prohibiting the establishment of any state religion." The section on "under God" in the pledge of allegiance seems to contradict this. Additionally, I think we should mention what has been said in the talk page, specifically the requirement for Affirmation to testify in court. Additionally, that senators, congressmen, and judges are required to believe in God should be mentioned. Oh also, the fact that there are no openly non-religious congressmen. I'll do this tomorrow most likely if no one has any complaints. AzureFury (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a new section detailing who has to swear to god and who does not. Additionally, I slightly reworded the top paragraph so I could fit in a mention of the only openly Atheist US Congressman. Right now the section really needs citation, lolz. AzureFury (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There are at least more two famous american contemporary politicians who are non religious. Henry Kissinger is an assumed agnostic, and Jessie Ventura, like it appears in the article about him is an atheist. Interesting that Kissinger never could run for President, since he was born in Germany, and that Ventura was elected Governor of Minnesota by a third party, the Reform Party.82.154.80.140 (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Congressmen" ;). Also, as has been said, many people here suspect there are "closet" Atheists in American politics.  Showing how hard it is to be elected while being openly Atheist was my point. AzureFury (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

To show how it seems illogical the almost total absence of assumed atheists and agnostics from American politics, as can be seen from the Congress, it will be interesting if someone showed how many atheists and agnostics there are in the French Congress. I'm quite sure there are plenty, probably even the majority.81.193.214.48 (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't knew something about the situation in France, but I can tell you something about the situation in Germany. When a German Minister (government) is sworn into office, the the lines "so God help me", are optional. As far as I remember in the last Gerhard Schröder cabinet, the majority of the ministers didn't use it. When the current Angela Merkel was sworn, I think most of them brought in God in their oath of office.Zara1709 (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the assumption is that a large elected body is supposed to be semi-proportional (with a disproportionate number of white men of course). What makes Atheists' situation notable is the fact that the non-religious account for about 10-15% of the US population and have less than a percent of representation in Congress.  We don't need to compare it to other countries for this to be surprising (and in my opinion, disgusting).  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 19:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

New Iran Section
Though I firmly believe that Atheists are discriminated against in Iran, I find the new section has a number of problems. The first is that it is without any citations. The second is that the first sentence basically says "Atheists are discriminated against" but then never gives any solid examples.

It mentions Atheists can be executed, but this is slightly misleading. Apostasy is a matter of debate, including what the punishment is, and whether or not you have to reject Islam, as in, whether or not someone born an Atheist is subject to being tried for Apostasy. In addition, this is a criticism of Islam, and indeed it is covered at Criticisms of Islam. Before we re-add this to the section (right now I've kept it in the source code in comments) we need to find a way to relate it to Iran specifically. Or perhaps we could re-organize the article to include the Middle-East as a region, with subsections for each country?

The last paragraph says poets and artists were executed, but doesn't even say if any of them were Atheist. Atheists are so rare in the developing world that it's quite possible that they were Christian or Sunni or some other religion that Shiites hate.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 21:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The term "atheist" doesn't even exist in Kurdish or Persian vocabulary. Most Iranians are non-practicing Shia Muslims, but those living in Iran really do not identify as atheists, they just don't practice religion. The section make an OR-laden reference to Chain murders of Iran which were politically-motivated extrajudicial executions of liberal dissidents and reformers (including some allies of the reformist president Khatami) Religion had nothing to do with these political crimes carried out by some hard-line elements of the regime, most of the victims were Shia Muslims, some practicing, some non-practicing. --CreazySuit (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I hate to delete an entire section, the only example of discrimination given in the Iran section may not even be relevant. We can re-add this later if we can find more concrete examples and sources.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 18:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-organization
I'm thinking of re-organizing the article. Right now it's organized by country. I was thinking of making this a subsection of "by country." And then adding a section "by religion." There we can include the scripture and the discrimination not specific to a country. Thoughts?  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 17:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait, "internationl examples" is another phrase for "by country." Ok, then We should just add another section for "by religion."   Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 18:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

PA constitution
I fail to see how does PA constitution discriminates against atheists. The statement "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth" does not punish or disqualifies atheists, it only reinforces the fact that people with certain beliefs will not be disqualified, while staying silent on other people. The kind of logic used to claim that this is discriminatory would lead to weird conclusions like that Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 really discriminates against able-bodied people because it says that people with disabilities will not be discriminated against, but stays silent on the rights of able bodied people.--Hq3473 (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a difference. The title of the Americans with Disabilities Act includes the word "disabilities."  The assumption therefore is that this document is not intended to be applied to everyone.  The constitution of PA is.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 19:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is very simple: the state constitution extends a right of protection to a narrowly defined group of people, specifically to those who acknowledge the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments. People who do not fit into this category -- not just atheists but also Universalists (who reject a future state of rewards and punishment), Wiccans (who acknowledge the being more than one God) and adherents of many other recognized religions -- do not have this protection and, in theory at least, can be barred from holding office or a place of trust or profit in the state. How is this not discrimination? TechBear (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, by your logic American law provides protection against discrimination to a very narrow group of people: specifically those who have a qualifying disability. People who do not fit into this category  do not have this protection and, in theory at least, can be fired from their jobs at will. Just because some document "in theory" may discriminate against someone does not necessarily makes it discriminatory. PA const. is not discriminatory on its face, at least not any more then American employment law is discriminatory toward able bodied people. Please provide an authoritative source that claims that PA constitution is discriminatory or remove this statement as original research.--Hq3473 (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just restating your point is not a counter-argument. And people can be fired at will from certain positions.  It's called "at will employment."  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 16:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is simple: it is arguable if PA constitution is discriminatory on its face (it DOES NOT prohibit atheists from holding any office). Please provide authoritative SOURCES for PA constitution being discriminatory -- otherwise such conclusion is a violation of no original research policy, wikipedia is not a medium to express something that is only YOUR opinion.--Hq3473 (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If it said, "and white people may vote," without mentioning other races, would we be justified in calling it discriminatory?  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 19:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mentioning that some group has a right that all other ALSO HAVE -- is NOT discriminations on its face. (consider is this discriminatory: "non-white people can vote?") The point is that No original research clearly says that "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source." I have just challenged an arguable assertion -- provide a reliable source please.--Hq3473 (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait, this follows the quote from the PA constitution: "It may be noted that the Pennsylvania law, unlike the others, does not exclude anyone; instead, it affords protection to theists alone." No conclusions are made in the article.  We simply state the facts and let readers decide for themselves.  This is not WP:SYNTH.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Though I don't think it's necessary, I added sources calling the law discrimination, including one from "religioustolerance.org". I hope this is satisfactory.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 20:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this is not acceptable -- godlessgeeks and religioustolerance are not reliable sources required by Verifiability, rather they are self-publsihed blogs that undergone no fact-checking or peer review. I am looking for a more reliable publication, preferably a law journal. On your second point that "No conclusions are made in the article" -- this is false the pa constitution is listed under heading EXAMPLES in an article called "discrimination against atheists" therefore explicitly declaring PA constitution an EXAMPLE of discrimination against atheists. Such a contentious claim (if not obvious on it face) requires a better source then a self-published website.--Hq3473 (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Including something in an article implies only that it is related. The PA constitution is included in a list of state constitutions that are viewed as discriminatory.  That it is not explicitly discriminatory is clearly explained.  There is no WP:SYNTH present.  That I am looking up sources for you that you for some reason are incapable of looking up is because I am maintaining the assumption of good faith.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 18:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I conducted a relatively thorough search of Law Journals on westlaw and failed to find any suggestion that PA constitution is discriminatory. Thus i believe that these sources simply do not exist. YOu yourself say that "PA constitution is included in a list of state constitutions that are viewed as discriminatory" my question is "Viewed by WHO"? If the answer is "some blogger on the internet" then PA constitution should not be included in this list.--Hq3473 (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent)Added more sources, now with people claiming practice in law. Do you still dispute it belongs here?  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 18:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Where exactly in those sources does it say that PA constitution is a discriminatory document? BTW, a good starting source for you would be: "QUAKER STATE: PENNSYLVANIA'S GUIDE TO REDUCING THE FRICTION FOR RELIGIOUS OUTSIDERS UNDER THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE" 2 N.Y.U. J. L. & Liberty 28, but even that article fails to state that PA constitution is discriminatory in of itself (The article does says that atheist were often excluded from public office in pre-federal era of American history).--Hq3473 (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I would have no objections is paragraph is added to "Historical examples" section explaining how Pennsylvania used to exclude atheists. Potential discriminatory history of constitution should be explained in proper context, as on it face pa constitution does not CURRENTLY discriminate.--Hq3473 (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Both articles say that the PA constitution is designed to favor Christians, this is the definition of discrimination.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 19:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * One article is a 1824 judicial opinion, while the article in question was added to pa constitution in 1838(see "CODA TO WILLIAM PENN'S OVERTURE: SAFEGUARDING NON-MAINSTREAM RELIGIOUS LIBERTY UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION", 4 UPAJCL 81) making this case wholly irrelevant. The other "article" is once again a self-published blog. Once again i fail to see any reliable sources.--Hq3473 (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what "CODA TO WILLIAM PENN'S OVERTURE: SAFEGUARDING NON-MAINSTREAM RELIGIOUS LIBERTY UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION" is. I'm adding yet another source, this one from a book saying, "this provision remains in the constitution but remains unenforceable."  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 19:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Found one explicitly saying that the PA constitution prevents atheists from holding office. This debate is over.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 19:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * CODA TO WILLIAM PENN'S OVERTURE: SAFEGUARDING NON-MAINSTREAM RELIGIOUS LIBERTY UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION" is an article in University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law issue 4, page 81.(4 UPAJCL 81 for short). Once again both your sources fall short of the mark all they says is that 1790 and 1776 PA Constitutions included religious test and there they were dropped later. None of this indicates that CURRENT constitution is discriminatory. Once again feel free to add the OLD PA constitutions as an examples of historic discrimination, just not CURRENT. As for footnote 14, this is a contention of one litigant, nothing more.--Hq3473 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)You could not be more wrong. The first source added specifically says that the discriminatory provisions remain in the present so you can't chalk that up to being the old PA constitution. This is from the second: In the constitutions of at least eight states, there still exist 16 provisions that deny atheists the right to hold public office and/ or testify in a court of law Followed in the next paragraph by   Pennsylvania State Constitution: Article 1, Section 4 (“No person who   acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and   punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified   to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.”); That is in the current constitution. Since the possible discriminatory nature of the PA constitution is not stated as fact in the article, I need only show that some reliable sources consider it so. I have done that.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 20:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed the article to reflect this source.--Hq3473 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have also changed the heading from "current examples" to "current alleged examples" to reflect that examples given are just allegations and not facts. Thank you for bearing with me.--Hq3473 (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not labelling the whole section "alleged" examples because you don't think deliberately excluding atheists from protection is discrimination. Find a reliable source saying it's not.  Otherwise, alleged stays out.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 20:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Present PA constitution reads:
 * "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

Would it be worth including in an article on racial discrimination (w/o the "alleged" qualifier) if it read:
 * "No person who is white shall, on account of his skin color, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

--JimWae (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC) or on religious discrimination, it it read:
 * That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law --JimWae (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, by your logic Americans with Disabilities act discriminates against able-bodied people because it says : "No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual" AHA!!!!! so i cannot discriminate against people with disability, but I CAN discriminate against people without disability. Discrimination is self-evident! Mentioning that some group has a right that all other ALSO HAVE -- is NOT discriminations on its face. IT may be discrimination in view of historical/social history. But such assertions need good sources.--Hq3473 (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Flawed analogy, as I explained. Re-stating it doesn't make it less refuted.  Currently, without "alleged" or "debatable" on the section, we have one implication that it is discrimination, a sentence saying it might be discrimination, and a sentence saying it's not implication.  That is more than reasonable.  Let it go.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 16:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that Hq3473 submit a request for discussion? The section seems to have been fine until he started raising issues, and despite AzureFury providing cites, Hq3473 still insists that the article is deficient. If Hq3473 wants a genuine resolution, he should use the correct tools for getting a resolution. TechBear (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious intolerance?
How can discrimination against atheists be a form of religious intolerance when atheists don't even believe in religion?

Ожиданиесчастья (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The religious discriminate against the non-religious. Hence "religious intolerance" or "the intolerance of the religious."  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 04:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the Bible verses have nothing to do with atheism
Some of the Bible verses that are currently included have nothing to do with atheism. These three all have to do with internal church relations - heresy, if you will, rather than unbelief. Each case deals with people who are ostensibly Christians but who are teaching or behaving in a way that the writer believes is harmful to the church.


 * Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16:17)
 * And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. (Thessalonians 3:14)
 * If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: (2 John 1:10)

This one is dealing with a form of proto-gnosticism that did not accept the incarnation. Note the argument, that by denying that "Jesus is the Christ" they also deny "the Father and the Son." Early Gnostics denied that the man Jesus was divine, but wanted to accept both God and the divine Logos (the Son).


 * Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)

This one is also dealing with an internal church matter - whether or not a Christian can eat meat. The argument that's being made is that if a Christian thinks it may be wrong to eat meat, then they are violating their conscience if they go ahead and eat it.


 * And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Romans 14:23)

It's important to take the time to look at the context of the verses we include here. Otherwise we'll include a lot of stuff that simply doesn't belong, which will damage the credibility of the article with anyone who's familiar with the Bible. EastTN (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't buy your argument. How can you put these in context and get them to exclude atheists?  They're written in such a way as to be purposefully inclusive of a large number of groups; heretical Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 01:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the context is pretty clear on these. Take, for instance, Romans Chapter 14.  If we start with the first verse, we see that the discussion has to do with whether Christians should be vegetarians (and, further on in the chapter, observing certain religious holidays), and Paul argues for mutual tolerance:


 * 1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.


 * Paul makes it clear that there's nothing inherently wrong with eating meat, but that it could offend the consciences of some in the Christian community at that time - and he argues forcefully that those qualms should be accommodated:


 * 14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.


 * If anything, Paul comes down hardest on people who agree with him, and are comfortable eating meat:


 * 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.


 * Then he concludes with the bit you quote, where he lays out the underlying principle that if we persuade someone to do something that they are convinced is wrong, we're making them sin - it's wrong to intentionally do something you think is wrong. This verse has nothing to do with excluding anyone - quite the opposite, it's used specifically to explain why we need to be sensitive to the moral qualms of others, and not force them to violate their own consciences.  It's also all dealing with internal relations between "brothers."


 * 22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.


 * On the issue of disassociating with other Christians who are creating internal divisions in the church, the most extensive discussion is in I and II Corinthians. Paul very explicitly excludes non-Christians.


 * 9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.


 * 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."


 * I don't think it could be any clearer - the issue is purely one of association with someone who calls himself a brother and who is behaving immorally. Anything beyond that is left in the hands of God (which should not bother an atheist a whit, under the assumption that He's not there).


 * Understand, I'm not trying to argue against including what the Bible has to say about unbelievers - I just want us to get it right. You'll note that I didn't say anything about 2 Corinthians 6:14, for instance.  It clearly does deal with relations between Christians and non-Christians.  (Though commentators have split on exactly what it's dealing with - intermarriage, business partnerships, etc.)  But if we throw in stuff that the knowledgeable reader will recognize as clearly inapplicable, it's going to undermine the credibility of the article.  Take a look at what's left if we remove the verses that don't really apply - there's plenty to show that the New Testament teaches that people who reject God will be condemned to hell.  Do we really need anything beyond that? EastTN (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the quote on eating and the quote from Corinthians. I'm not ready to delete the others you've mentioned without an explantion of them as well.  Why don't you add some quotes to the section if you know so much about the bible?  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 21:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'd have kept 2 Corinthians 6:14, which is dealing with relations between Christians and non-believers, and dropped Romans 16:17, Thessalonians 3:14 and 2 John 1:10. Why don't I add more verses?  Because I don't think the New Testament is the best place to look for this sort of thing.  It says over and over that if people don't obey God, they're going to be condemned to Hell - but God's going to take care of that after they die.  At the time the NT was written, the shoe was completely on the other foot.  Romans considered Christians to be atheists, because they refused to properly respect and honor the traditional gods of the empire - which made sense in the context of Greco-Roman world view, which saw religion as a social activity that promoted unity, loyalty and patriotism.  Christians weren't in a position to actively persecute anyone until the early 4th century, when Constantine was converted.  Once we get to that point, of course, there's plenty to talk about (Christian debate on persecution and toleration).


 * In my judgment, the article would be much stronger if it focused on actual instances of persecution, taking examples from the history of Christianity, and what was said at that time. Right now we're quoting verses that say non-believers are bad people that God's going to punish, that Christians shouldn't be associated with immoral people (which isn't all that remarkable - don't we think it's hypocritical when a televangelist is linked with crooked politicians, drug dealers, etc.?), and implying that this means that Christian scripture teaches them to persecute atheists.  Even if we think that's right, it's original research if we can't find a reliable source to make the connection.


 * If you want to include something that's been used as an explicit justification for out-and-out persecution, the best verse is . It's been misused more than any other in the Bible as an excuse for hate.  The victims have been Jews, however, rather than atheists. EastTN (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We can't really focus on historical persecution of atheists because people would conceal their atheism, not to mention being so few in number already.
 * I've kept the verses contained in the article pretty uncontroversial already. Condemning someone to hell is a violation of the freedom of religion, and therefore satisfies the definition of discrimination.  This is not original research.
 * The reason I added the verses from the bible was so I could mention apostasy in Islam. Countries don't follow scripture to the letter, but having such discriminatory material in the books is worth mentioning.  In addition, I think belief that the New Testament is the pinnacle of tolerance is something of a myth that exists simply because people don't know about these condemnations.  Listing these quotes here increases the article's usefulness as a reference.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 17:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Material relevant to discrimination
Alright Hq3473, enough with the deletions. Just because something is not obviously discrimination does not warrant deleting it. People will come here to learn about these things. If you look at the talk page, you'll see that it's widely believed that the president is required to say "under god". It is exactly the purpose of an encyclopedia to inform, and in this case we're informing them that this is not the case. If you're trying to push a pro-theist agenda, deleting statements that say "this is NOT discrimination" is not helping your argument.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 17:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Look i am not for theist propaganda. However i do not think that any mention of god anywhere(especially if not mandatory) is by default a discrimination against atheists. I think the article would be much better if it presented only STRONG REAL example of discrimination, not some pointless little quibbles.  If you think that a tradition  for president to say "under god" is discrimination of any sort please provide sources. Similarly how is a OPTIONAL oath by witnesses constitutes discrimination? Sources for everything if you insist on inclusion.--Hq3473 (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for missing the point entirely. If you're not going to read my statements, then I'm not going to bother debating with you.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 06:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I got your point. I just though it was irrelevant. I presented TWO argument for deletion: The things i deleted were 1. Un-sourced. 2. Not discrimination. The purpose of encyclopedia is not to inform everyone about everything. The purpose is to inform people about sourced information relevant to the article at hand. So yes if something is not OBVIOUSLY a discrimination and remains un-sourced for a long time it IS warranted to be deleted. --Hq3473 (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * AzureFury, do you really want to include EVERYTHING that has to do with mentioning religion in public life as discrimination? Would you agree if added the following pieces of trivia to the article: "The supreme court building has a statue of Moses a Jewish and Christian prophet", "the days of the week in official US documents are named after north gods", "Unites States hosted winter "Olympic games" dedicated to Greek gods". Do you think these examples would seek to inform people about discrimination?
 * I think the first one is worthy of mention, yes. It's a breach of the seperation of church and state, just like hanging the 10 commandments in congress.  Come to think of it, that should be mentioned too...  You keep calling it uncited information.  It is cited, and the information presented in the article is easily verifiable as required by wiki policy.  There is no policy dictating the content of articles.  That is up to the editors.  Many people believe this is discrimination.  Let them read the facts and decide for themselves.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 00:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What uncited is that there are people who believe that it is discrimination. Who exactly thinks that it is discrimination? Which people? We need sources for people actually believing that this stuff is discrimination.--Hq3473 (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since we don't call it discrimination, no we don't.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 20:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is listed in the article "Discrimination against atheists" under heading "Current example".--Hq3473 (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I've rewritten the passage a little bit to emphasize that it is a refutation of a popularly held belief and that the mention here is not an accusation of discrimination.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 05:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I re-wrote the passage to emphasize that some conduct is required and may be a discrimination, while other conduct is clearly non-discriminatory. Let me know if it is acceptable.--Hq3473 (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not and I've reverted. We're not going to say what presidents don't have to do and follow that with what they do.  Similarly for witnesses in court, we're not going to say what they don't have to answer and follow it with what they are asked.  You really consider this a compromise?  Did you even read the paragraph?  It sounded awful, like someone had tried to push their POV without deleting any facts, only obscuring them.  It's fine as is.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 05:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are saying that these things are NOT discrimination make it CLEAR in the article. If you are saying that things ARE discrimination -- provide source please. BY presenting these facts without qualification it sounds like "Witnesses can affirm" and "President does not have to say 'GOD'" are examples of discrimination, which they are clearly not.
 * You are the only person who seems to think so.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the section name from "Current examples" to "Current issues." There is no longer any implication that the items listed are discrimination.  The implication is "atheists take issue with these."  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 23:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better! but still i would appreciate a cite for exactly WHICH atheists take issue with optional witness oath. I am sure this would be a relatively easy cite to find.--Hq3473 (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you please leave the poor Rob Sherman in there!
So: I don't care what fucking problem the US-American public has with atheism. I don't understand this whole atheism issue. There are good arguments for atheism (How could a good God allow the evil in the world?) and against it (How can you live in the evil world if you don't believe in a good God?), but as incredible as this sounds, in my opinion Albert Camus has actually solved this question in The Rebel (book). If you read Augustine of Hippo as a philosopher he also has an interesting view.

I am only dealing with this issue, because I've cleaned up some of the mess that other editors created a various religious persecution articles, and the Rob Sherman controversy was one case of content that clearly was misplaced. Other editors became rather uncivil towards me about this, forcing me to spend so much time on this issue that I am not going easy on it any more. The argument about "Self-published sites" here is blatant attempt of Wikilawyering. You are just seeking an guideline that fits because you just want to remove something. If you would just spent one minute with editoral judgement you would realized that our reliable sources are those newspapers that reported about the issue. And anyway, wp:rs is not a blunt hammer against anything that is not listed there: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." The authors of reliable sources "are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." I think we can consider Rob Sherman as trustworthy as a reliable source for the point THAT HE CLAIMS that Bush said that. We are not at all considering him a reliable source for the point that he actually said it! Zara1709 (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I did leave Rob Sherman in the article. Its the self-published site that is the issue. Rob Sherman's web site is self-published.  It isn't a clean source for information regarding his own unverified claim. He says something happened, at a public press conference, but no one else can confirm it... it needs something better than his own web site to verify it. Some of the other cites for this article aren't any better.  The Kevin Drum cite is one of the only good ones in the article. 174.153.188.182 (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You did not respond to my arguments; Furthermore, check your discussion page, I have a good reason to consider this vandalism. I am not going to report it immediately, since this might not be considered obvious and persistent vandalism, but I am going to revert it as vandalism. Zara1709 (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not vandalism. It's simply removing an invalid cite.  The only WP:RS here is from Kevin Drum, a Bush opponent who also says that this annecdote can't be shown to have happened. Sherman's claim is extremely weak and his later 'proof' is even weaker. 174.153.188.182 (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Editorial judgement would come to the conclusion that the reader will find the original source useful. There aren't any claims in that section that are not backed up from other sources. Zara1709 (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia uses third party sources. Rob Sherman is an advocate and the cite is his self-published website.  Kevin Drum is a third party and WP:RS, Sherman is not for this instance.  The final paragraph in the section has another problem.  It is based on Sherman's own website and is clearly WP:SYN based on his opinions.  This was not a notable political issue when it occurred and Sherman saying it happened isn't sufficiently notable by itself.  Press accounts of the press conference given that day in Chicago make no mention of Sherman or his allegations.  Sherman made these claims many months later.  The first two paragraphs of the section should remain, but without Sherman's website and certainly without his self-declared WP:SYN proof. 174.153.188.182 (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Check WP:OR. Primary sources may be used, so we can use his own website to quote him.  The statements made by one side in a conflict are not WP:SYNTH.  Also, check WP:NOTE.  This is a policy on the creation of pages, not the content of pages.  You have no reason to delete this.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 16:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Pete Stark - atheist?
The article claims that Pete Stark has been the only openly atheist member of Congress in the history of the US. However, to my knowledge Pete Stark has never claimed to be an atheist, merely a nontheist. There is no citation given for claim that he is an atheist, should this be removed until one can be provided? 129.97.254.230 (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So eager to delete. I've changed "atheist" to "non-theistic".  Problem solved.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 00:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this seems to be just a question of language. If he claims not to believe in God that would make him an atheist.85.242.237.223 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggested move
I was thinking of moving the page to something like "Discrimination against non-theists" since that's really what it is. People interchange atheist with agnostic and everything inbetween pretty regularly, but we shouldn't. Really, laws that require a person to claim belief in god when they really don't are discriminatory against all non-believers.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 18:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Iran section
We need a citation for the Iran section. I've added a citation tag for now, but I'm fully expecting an Iranian editor to come along and delete it. At this point, he would be justified in doing so. I've been hunting for this sort of thing on Google...but I haven't found it. If someone knows more than I do, please add a reference.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked Booga Louie to deal with it appropriately. A baby turkey[citation needed] 07:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination by atheists

 * Shouldnt we include an article on how atheists discriminate against non atheists


 * I don't know if any other religions have equivalent articles, listing their crimes against other religions. Further, how can you prove the discrimination committed by atheists is religious in nature?  If an atheists massacres Christians who opposes him, is it "atheist discrimination"?  Or is it simply a person killing people who oppose him?  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 05:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There should be an article about that. You know, the USSR killings that far outnumbered the Holocaust...etc. Redsox7897 (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great Purge. —Jomasecu &#91;T•C&#93; 03:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Persecution by Christians redirects to Christian debate on persecution and toleration, and there is obviously an article on Islamic terrorism. I don't see why a similar article regarding atheists would be objectionable if sufficient sources and examples were found. —Jomasecu &#91;T•C&#93; 03:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But is it religious persecution? That's the question.  Is it an atheist killing christians or another man killing people who oppose him.  Contrast the genocide in say ancient Rome to the Crusades.  One is about power.  One is about religion.  I don't object to such an article, I don't doubt that there are evil atheists just like every other religion, but how do you show that they're discriminating based on religion and not something else?  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 03:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That is why I mentioned sources and examples. I also doubt they could be found. —Jomasecu ( t•c ) 03:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Original research
According to WP:Original research:

''Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

'Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims so long as they have been published by a reliable source.'

''Our policy: Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.''

If you can find a secondary source, for example, where someone states that these verses allow the killing or discrimination against atheists, then we may use these verses, that is why I didn't take them out. However, until you show a secondary source that attribute to these verses what you are, you are breaking WP:Original research. -- Enzuru 02:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't made any claims that aren't easily verifiable. I don't need a secondary source.  Murdering non-believers is discrimination against non-believers.  This is fact.  Do you dispute this?  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 02:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You state the following, "Our policy: Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia." The Bible has been published thousands of times by sources, that does not mean we can use any verse like we like. Once again, you must simply have a secondary source that states the interpretation we are presenting here is valid. That is simple, I am simply tagging, I am not deleting content. If you delete the tags one more time I will alert an administrator. I don't dispute murdering anyone is discrimination, however, you need a source to prove that is what these verses are implying, if this is easy to source do not delete the tags and simply source yourself. Second, you are breaking original research if you cannot prove that these verses are considered in correct context by their respective faiths. This is easy, all you have to do is source yourself. -- Enzuru 02:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are inventing policy. Yes we can use whatever verse from the bible we want.  No interpretation is present.  You are disputing the definition of discrimination.  These verses specifically command followers to murder atheists.  You say murder is discrimination.  Definition is satisfied.  'Nuff said.  Inform an admin if you wish.  Explain to him why you are tagging trivially verifiable information.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 02:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, murdering is discrimination, I agree to that. You are stating that these verses specifically command followers to murder atheists, that is original research because they are clearly not interpreted like that by a Christian or Jew or Muslim all the time. And fine, I shall inform an administrator. -- Enzuru 02:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * lol. Interpret this for me, theist:  "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 03:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You have once again proven your WP:original research, as well as having an IP conveniently revert for you (which has also been reported to an administrator). As for your verse, sorry, that is referring to defensive warfare in the Qur'an. Elsewhere, the Qur'an specifically says that unbelievers who do not fight against you, you may be friendly with them. -- Enzuru 03:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I asked a friend without a wiki account what he thought, and he agreed with me. Prove what you've said about these quotes and I'll remove them myself.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 03:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, neither of our opinions matter, because that is original research. You must prove these verses mean what you are saying they mean to scripture, not me to disprove what you feel is apparent. I disproved many of these verses before, and I will paste it here, not for this debate, but simply for you to read. Once again, you will need sources showing that these verses are interpreted as you mean. -- Enzuru 03:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Oh you who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you. (Q.9:123)

2. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off. (Q.8:12)

3. Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him. (Q.3:85)

4. Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. (Q.9:5)

5. Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out. (Q.2:191)

6. Fight them on until there is no more dissension and religion becomes that of Allâh. (Q.9:193)

7. Fight them, and Allâh will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame. (Q.9:14)

8. Make no excuses: you have rejected Faith after you had accepted it. If we pardon some of you, we will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin. (Q.9:66)

9. You who believe! Verily, the Mushrikûn (unbelievers) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (the grand mosque at Mecca) after this year. (Q.9:28)

10. Fight those who do not believe in Allâh and the last day... and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior. (Q.9:29)

These excerpts are taken from the Koran itself; I don't see how this leaves much 'wiggle room' for tolerance in modern Islam unless followers have decided to ignore sections of their holy text, and Jihad would seem inevitable to me.Mjackso6 (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you're taking them out of context, silly. I can take parts of the Bible or Das Kapital out of context too. Here we go, let me correct your lack of research:
 * You quote verse 9:123. In the start of that chapter, verse 9:6 states, "And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of God, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not."
 * You quote verse 8:12. After that is verse 8:37, which states, "Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning)."
 * You quote verse 3:85, verse 3:113 after that states, "They are not all alike. Of the People of the Scripture there is a staunch community who recite the revelations of God in the night season, falling prostrate (before Him)." The phrase "People of the Scripture" refers to Jews, Christians, and other religious groups.
 * You quote verse 9:5, but you don't fully quote it, you cut off part of the quote. The entire part states as follows, "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful." And even establishment of worship isn't needed, since many groups rejected Islam and just accepted a treaty with Muslims.
 * You quote verse 2:191. Right after that verse is 2:192, which states, "But if they desist, then lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful.". Earlier in that chapter is verse 2:62, which states, "Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in God and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve."
 * You quote verse 9:193, which doesn't even exist, since the 9th chapter of the Qur'an only has 129 verses!
 * You quote verse 9:14, but right before that verse, verse 9:13 states, "And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist." So, once again, we have defensive fighting.
 * You quote verses 9:28 and 9:29. I once again quote verse 2:62, which states, "Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in God and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve."
 * And most importantly, whether someone is a theist or atheist, I quote the following verses, 60:08 to 60:09, "Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers. Allah forbiddeth you only those who warred against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out, that ye make friends of them. Whosoever maketh friends of them - (All) such are wrong-doers."
 * You should do your own research instead of finding quotes on the Internet and not actually reading them in context. Islam brought to religion the idea we must logically accept things through our own research, both through intellect and heart. I urge you to do the same, no matter what religion you are, or even if you have no religion. Truth and logic must go hand in hand, don't discriminate or hate another faith or judge them until you do actual research, instead of copying and pasting verses out of context with causes hatred towards people, giving them wrong impressions. Don't just trust what someone else tells you, you need to verify it yourself. Your sister in humanity, -- Enzuru 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't put every quote into context. Several of them you countered with a completely different quote which only shows that the Koran, just like the Bible, contradicts itself.  This is not a surprising result.  If anything, this supports my position that quotes from the Koran may be listed here if it is impossible to put them in context.  I had a similar discussion with a Christian earlier.  Indeed, I removed the quote he put into context.  But don't even try to tell me that the Koran is a bastion of tolerance in every single verse.  You are outright lying to yourself if you think this, which would again be unsurprising.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 03:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So far you have called me a theist (which has nothing to do with WP:Original research, told me I am lying to myself, and continued to prove you are breaking WP:Original research. If you want to discuss personal beliefs (no, I don't believe the Qur'an contradicts itself nor do I believe the Qur'an incites the amount of intolerance that is seen today), you are more than free to e-mail me. However, you have made my case with the administrators easy. This will be settled soon enough. -- Enzuru 03:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You admit to believing in the Qur'an. You are therefore a theist, my apologies for accurately describing you, atheist.  Good luck with the admins.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 03:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I stated why the theist comment was offensive, you broke WP:Good faith by bringing my religion into an issue which has to do with an article, not any of our personal beliefs. -- Enzuru 03:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I invited a theist, someone who knows more about religion than me, to comment on religious text. I'm researching the quotes now.  Looks like 9:123 reads as it should.  A quote that contradicts it a chapter away is not enough to convince me it was taken out of context.  This is what makes me think so:  - The paragraph starting with "The literary context of 9:123"  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 03:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a start, but I notice your source uses only one Musim interpretation (tafsir), and that's by Maududi who not only disparaged unbelievers in his interpretations, but prophets and their followers themselves. He isn't accepted as mainstream to say the least. A Christian or atheist's interpretation of a Muslim holy book isn't going to be valid for Muslims themselves, and the context the article tries to present seems rather skewed. If we have, say, a holy book that states everyone should be put on fire, and everyone in that religion interprets it like Muslim Sufis do, the fire of love, does that make other interpretations valid? Not really. We should find a source the extensively quotes Muslim commentators. The issue of Qur'anic injunctions fighting unbelievers has been extensively reviewed by Muslim commentators, you should find no lack of sources in them, or in those who quote them (which is preferable in MOS:Islam). -- Enzuru 04:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We can't trust atheists or christians to comment on the Koran, so let's ask a muslim, surely he'll be objective! :p  This is an unavoidable problem with not only interpretting the Koran in english, but quoting it.  Maybe I'll expand the section...I am having no trouble finding both translations and interpretations of specific verses.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 04:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I am saying. It is Muslims who are adhering to Islam, not Christians or atheists, so if those Muslims interpret it to be violent (and don't check western Muslims, check earlier commentators before the rise of secularism and humanism), then it is violent. If the Muslims aren't interpreting it to be violent, or it is a fringe opinion, then one cannot say the Qura'n means that to Muslims. You're correct, don't check modern apologist Muslims who want to cover things up, check traditionalist Muslim commentators, as well as mainstream scholarship, fringe views on both sides of the pond are not good for this article. -- Enzuru 04:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll expand the section later tonight, including multiple translations and perhaps a few interpretations. I won't consider arguments based on historical context though.  That is such a lame excuse for a book that is supposed to be the word of god.  I'm going out for a few hours.  I'll put a citation tag on the section until I'm done.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 04:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of tafsir is based however on historical context, so you will find yourself seeing that often in your research with mainstream scholarship. And the discussion isn't just limited to the Qur'an, we need to cite Christian and Jewish sources that the verses we are using from their scriptures validates discrimination against atheists. I still stand by my original research complaint. -- Enzuru 04:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And I stand by policy -- we do not need a secondary source if the information we draw from the text is trivially verifiable. The Bible condemns non-believers to hell over and over again, according to the Christian with the same complaint as you.  Unless you dispute this fact, you must agree that we do not need citation to say that the Bible discriminates against atheists.  The quesiton then becomes which quotes we can use to demonstrate this.  If you feel that these quotes have been taken out of context, please show me, and I will delete them without complaint.  But I'm not going to search the internet for an article specific to each quote, labeling it as discrimination.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 06:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it's easy. If you don't want to source everything (ie, source that this verse is used by mainstream scholarship to condemn atheists) then there is no issue with having my tags there. My issue wasn't the hell thing, it was verses that seemed to be promoting violence against atheists, which to me is original research since mainstream Muslim and Jewish scholarship themselves don't interpret those verses to mean that, which is original research. If you keep the verses of violence out, I'd just keep the citation-needed tags, since using the verses that condemn atheists to hell interpretations can easily be found by mainstream scholarship in all three religions. So what I'm saying is, there are two tags there, citation-needed and original research. Citation needed is because you aren't citing your sources (which you say are easy to cite, trivial, that doesn't mean according to policy you don't have to cite them) that these verses are interpreted by mainstream scholarship to mean what they mean. My second tag is for original research, when from my knowledge, you are using verses that even mainstream scholarship doesn't use to promote violent acts against atheists. Also, let me clear up something that you seem to have misunderstood. I'm not saying every verse is taken out of context. I agree (and have stated several times) that killing and saying atheists are going to hell is discrimination. I'm just saying you need to find sources that say that this and that verse means atheists are going to hell or should be killed in light of scripture and the religion, which obviously is discrimination. If you can't, you either are not citing your sources, or if no mainstream sources by the faith can be cited, are breaking original research. That's all I'm saying. -- Enzuru 07:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Another idea
Instead of just citing from scriptures, we should delete those sections and use secondary sources themselves. I actually thought a section like this already existed but I realized just now it didn't (I thought this was a separate section dealing with the scripture of those faiths). Why don't we rebuild the section citing Jewish rabbnical opinions on how atheists should be treated (historically as well as contemporarily), Christian opinions (particulary Catholic and Protestant), and Muslim opinions, citing both mainstream historical scholarship as well as recent persecution of atheists by Muslim communities? This way, we can deal both with what the religions preach, and what is practiced by the followers. Scripture as we both agreed is vague and sometimes not easy to decipher. -- Enzuru 07:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Like, let me give you an example. In Usuli Twelver Islamic fiqh, atheists are considered to be ritually impure, and if you touch a wet one you'll need to wash yourself. This isn't found in scripture, but rather this is practiced according to Usuli Twelver fiqh (most of it at least). We can build a strong article off of these sources. But so we don't break WP:Original research, we can't just cite an Ayatollah saying it, we need to find a source that cites the Ayatollah (which isn't hard!). -- Enzuru 07:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to keep at least a few quotes from scripture in here. It's unfair to say that discrimination against atheists is entirely culture based when nearly every (if not every) culture uses scripture to justify the discrimination.  It's the natural thing to do to list here that scripture.  I agree with you though that the article has been lacking sections going into detail on the treatment of atheists by various religions.  I originally added the sections on scripture so that I could mention apostasy in Islam without being unbalanced.  The punishment for apostasy is, afterall, heavily scripture based.  It would be unfair for me to talk about Islamic scripture without mentioning the bible.
 * In response to your previous statement (I want to keep this fairly linear so I'll respond here) my argument has and remains that secondary sources for these quotes are not necessary in the cases where the quotes are not taken out of literary context because their meaning is clear and they trivially satisfy the definition of discrimination. This is not original research.  It is comprehension of the english language.  If I was mistaken in some of my additions, I'll remove them.  I am not a biblical scholar, nor a muslim, so I haven't read either book from front to back.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 06:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing, it isn't straightforward. There are verses that very obviously in the Qur'an mean one thing, but they have rarely been interpreted the way that would be obvious, even by historical commentators, do you see what I'm saying? That's why we can still keep certain quotes, but we should perhaps put the quotes in the body of the article and use more reliable sources. It's not hard to find discrimination against atheists in the Qur'an, the Torah, the Gospels, the Baghavad Gita, the Guru Granth Sahib, the proper way that doesn't entail WP:original research. The way we are doing it currently really isn't representing how traditionally Muslims have understood the Qur'an. It's like you've put up this flying spaghetti monster and want me to disprove it, rather, it's fair for me to ask you to prove to me that these verses have been traditionally understood the way you are saying, I can't find material refuting an interpretation that hasn't traditionally existed. Like, in Sufi poetry the prohibited drink wine is often used, but it is rarely ever meant literally, it's simply poetry. That exact same thing doesn't apply for the Qur'an per se, but what does apply is applying traditional meanings to the verses rather than saying "this verse obviously means this" without any traditional or mainstream interpretation to back it up which is original research no matter how we try to trist it. So, I'll repeat what I said before, let's create an actual textual body for discrimination in religion, and then use verses that have been traditionally used against atheists within that body (and we'll quote reliable commentators for their respective faiths about how these verses implicate the meanings they do). And lastly, actually, the defense against execution for apostasy is based in the Qur'an, not the ruling itself. Those who are against it most often quote the Qur'an saying there is no compulsion in religion while fanatics like Maududi claim that mainstream belief is incorrect. The ruling for apostasy itself is derived from secondary literature, hadith, meaning traditions. On a side note, the first verse, 8:12, every single source I am looking at it says the verse is about polytheists in battle fighting against Muslims (which as we note is the context of this battle), not polytheists in general, and not one interprets it as meaning atheists. We need to make sure we keep the discriminiation on atheists not on polytheists or People of the Book and so forth. -- Enzuru 06:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, if we're going to cite every little thing, how do you know that 8:12 was used by a "minority" of muslims? What if we consider muslims in the past?  I really doubt an admitted atheist would live long during Islam's early years.  How acceptable do you think atheism is in the Islamic world right now?  As I understand it, it's a capital offense in Iran right now.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 06:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We certainly need to cite that, you're correct, you're getting the hang of this! I'll add the citation-needed myself. And Iran is hardly an ideal choice to make points considering that Khomeini was considered so heretical in his inductions that the ulema refused to drink the same water as his son (using the same ruling for the discrimination against moisture on atheists). And you're absolutely correct, as I've stated several times, I don't want to cite modernist hippie Muslims, I want traditional or mainstream sources. And historically, verse 8:12 has been understood in the context of the Battle of Badr, but we'll flesh that out as we (hopefully?) start writing this article? -- Enzuru 06:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's tradition doesn't make it right. You're talking to an atheist here. The last argument you want to make to me is "most people believe this, therefore that's how we should approach it." I live in the most pious Christian nation in the western world and have chosen to reject my faith. The opinion of the masses doesn't have a lot of weight with me. If I understand you correctly, you would be willing to say that we could ignore the literal meaning of a passage just because most people do. That would not be original research, but it wouldn't be any better.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 07:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The traditional and mainstream explanation is how Muslims understand their faith, why would a new interpretation mean anything the them or mean anything to the world? Yes, according to WP:UNDUE we have to use mainstream sources and scholarly understandings. There's no point in interpreting, "This means this," when no one, or an insignificant minority believes it. The literal meaning of the passage has no meaning if Muslims themselves don't believe in it. If an atheist says this verse is violent but most Muslims don't believe so, then what does it mean? Who is going to act upon the violence, the atheist who doesn't believe in the Qur'an or the Muslim who doesn't believe in the atheist's interpretation? Do you see what I'm getting at, an interpretation has no meaning Islamically or to atheists if no one or few people are going to follow it. This article is about discrimination against atheists, and there isn't any discrimination if no one understands it to mean that except a few who don't even follow the book itself. Just to address another point, from my knowledge, unbelievers (atheists were particularly rare even before Islam in the Arabian peninsula) lived for quite a while in the Arabian peninsula after the rise of Islam, in fact an early account in Nahjul Balagha has Ali warning one of his governors against discrimination of unbelievers. Ali, the first Shi'a Imam, and fourth Sunni Rashidun caliph states,
 * After invoking Allah and praising the Holy Prophet (s) be it known to you that villagers and farmers of the provinces under you, complain of your harshness, arrogance and cruelty. They complain that you consider them mean, humble and insignificant and treat them scornfully. I deliberated over their complaint and found that if, on account of their paganism they do not deserve any favourable treatment of extra privileges, they do not deserve to be treated cruelly and harshly either. They are governed by us, they have made certain agreements with us and we are obliged to respect and honour the terms of those agreements. Therefore, be kind to them in future, tolerate them and give them due respect, but at the same time keep your prestige and guard well the position and honour of the authority which you hold. Always govern with a soft but strong hand. Treat them as they individually deserve, kindly or harshly and with respect or with contempt.
 * He also states in this book, "Whoever is not your brother in faith is your brother in humanity." -- Enzuru 07:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to your most recent edit, I think since this article is "discrimination against atheists" we should start with how the passage is discriminatory and then explain how it is not. I'm going to re-order that paragraph if you have no complaints.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 07:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it. -- Enzuru 07:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Atheists are not pagans. If only we got the respect they got.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 07:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * lol, agreed (especially in the West, sheesh, being pagan is cool but being an atheist is nerdy!), but there seems very little to imply atheists would have been given different treatment by Ali (especially since polytheism is an unforgivable sin in the Qur'an and atheism is not). But as I said before, let's also not get verses on polytheists and atheists mixed up either, most are talking about polytheists and most within the context of war. -- Enzuru 07:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Atheists pretty much didn't exist in the middle ages though. I read the History of atheism and atheism only really got started (in the West at least) during the 1800's if I recall. You could argue that historically the Koran and the Bible are never talking about atheists. Nonetheless we know that both books are used against them.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 07:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true, that's where modern interpretations will come in to bolster us. Though, I'd like to dispute that claim about atheism developing late, I remember the Baghavad Gita speaking of atheism, and I think the Qur'an does to. But I think the book is right elsewise, our standardized form of atheism is rather new. -- Enzuru 07:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the interpretations of modern religious groups are more relevant to the article than pure scripture. If the literal text is discriminatory, but no one who gives the words signifigant weight in their lives takes them in that way, it doesn't cause actual discrimination.  Either way, it needs refs. —Jomasecu (T•C) 18:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely what I've been saying, but we should also track any prominent historical interpretations. And either way, we need references in order not to break WP:original research. -- Enzuru 22:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Odd inclusions
OK, there are at least a couple of countries -- Denmark and Britain -- whose monarchs are restricted by law to be a member of the state religion. In what way does this constitute discrimination against atheists? It's discrimination against every other religious or irreligious perspective that exists; I'd imagine atheism is a downright trivial issue as far as these laws are concerned. It seems odd to include these. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An atheist can never be a monarch, that is rather prominent. -- Enzuru 22:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. Neither can a Zorastrian, a Jew, a Flying Spaghettist, a Catholic, a Baptist, a Methodist...big deal. --
 * Just because others are discriminated against as well does not mean it is not discrimination against atheists. -- Enzuru 23:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's certainly a noteable position and clearly discriminates. It's not against atheism specifically, and atheists may have been a trivial concern at the time these laws were made, but to an atheist it becomes less trivial. —Jomasecu (T•C) 23:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because you consider this discrimination trivial doesn't mean we need to exclude these examples.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 00:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We need reliable sources explicitly citing these items as examples of "discrimination against atheists." Otherwise we are committing original research in violation of policy, no matter how much we may like our conclusions. A baby turkey[citation needed] 05:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An interesting way to look at the UK monarchy is to consider that it would be pretty weird for an atheist to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Simply no. If you want a source go to dictionary.com and look up "discrimination."  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 07:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH. Please do not take dictionary definitions and combine them with your own perception of events to synthesize new interpretative conclusions. A secondary source must attribute "discrimination against atheists" to the material under question, you cannot view events and decide that they are discrimination yourself, based on a dictionary's definition of discrimination. A baby turkey[citation needed] 07:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:OR: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Anyone who speaks english can interpret these facts as discrimination.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 07:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As you have just said, "interpret". From the same WP:OR: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" A baby turkey[citation needed] 07:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you don't like that word, anyone who speaks english can infer that these facts are discrimination. Better?  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 07:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is still interpretation. Your original wording was more honest and straightforward about your behavior, even if it did not ultimately serve your interests. All material must derive from explicit attestation in reliable sources. There is no legitimate way around this. A baby turkey[citation needed] 07:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Repeating yourself doesn't make my counter-argument go away.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 07:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You provided no valid counter-argument. You have simply insisted that your original interpretations are "obvious." WP:PRIMARY exists, in part, to prevent people with your line of thinking from using Wikipedia articles for original research. Your claims are not "descriptive," they have involved synthesis, personal confirmation of experience, and other forms of illegitimate support. Please use reliable secondary sources that explicitly support the claims and associations made in the article from now on, thanks. A baby turkey[citation needed] 07:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What experience did I use to realize that banning atheists from office is discrimination? What other form of "illegitimate support" did I use besides a dictionary?  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 08:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Below you tried to prove that atheists consider the items discriminatory by citing your own testimony: "Proof: I take issue with these." Your personal opinion or experience of the topic cannot have any bearing on Wikipedia, as you (being a Wikipedia editor) are not a reliable source. The dictionary use remains illegitimate because rather than simply looking a word, you analyzed a situation and decided that it meets the definition of "discrimination." Your original analysis will not be included in Wikipedia articles. A baby turkey[citation needed] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is banning atheists from office discrimination? I am asking you now, turkey.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 20:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Our personal interpretations do not matter. Only reliable directly supporting secondary sources can be used to include the interpretation in the article. A baby turkey[citation needed] 21:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The reference to the UK monarch should be removed. Verbal  chat  11:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The original argument is that this was not relevant as it is not specific discrimination. Now we're arguing that this is not discriminatory or that it needs reference to the interpretation of discrimination?  Please.  An atheist cannot be the U.K.'s head of state (even if it is a figurehead position).  Any "reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" can easily understand that to be discriminatory. —Jomasecu ( t•c ) 19:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Be not distracted
The discussion about the appropriateness of quotes in the article seems to have been distracted as users began to discuss whether or not they think that the quotes do indeed show discrimination, but our personal conclusions have no bearing on whether or not the material is right for the article.

AzureFury's attempt to associate passages from primary sources to "discrimination against atheists," essentially suggesting that they are examples of Quranic "discrimination against atheists" is original research (WP:PRIMARY). Interpreting primary sources is what experts are supposed to do, not Wikipedians. If reliable sources associates these passages explicitly to "discrimination against atheists," we can use those sources, and if there is still value in a the passages we may keep them as well. Until then, they must be excised from this article.

For starters, love them or hate them, answering-islam.org, Jihad Watch, and other polemic websites do not even approach being reliable sources. A baby turkey[citation needed] 05:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've responded to this. Read or reread my comments regarding original research.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 07:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I just read them for the first time. We need sources describing what you want to include as being discrimination -- not just your analysis. For example, you don't get to conclude the Danish or British monarchial rules are discrimination; you get to find a reliable source that describes it as such. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 07:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've responded to this. Read or reread my comments regarding original research.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 07:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see "I don't need a secondary source. Murdering non-believers is discrimination against non-believers. This is fact". That doesn't quite cut it, considering Wikipedia content rules ask the opposite (that you use secondary sources, &c.) A baby turkey[citation needed] 07:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the references for Cultural_and_political_image_of_John_McCain. They do not use the word "controversial" but are included in the section.  We do not need someone to make this exact remark.  In addition, they are labeled under a section titled "issues" and not "discrimination".  The implication is that atheists take issues with these, and they do.  Proof:  I take issue with these.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 07:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If that article is also breaking the rules, go fix it. Your personal experience with the topic has absolutely no bearing on our construction of the article. You are not a reliable source. A baby turkey[citation needed] 07:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying I don't speak english? Are you saying these facts do not satisfy the definition of discrimination?  Why don't you lead by example and fix that article first, demonstrate to me a precedent that we are not allowed to use words whose definitions are satisfied by the material in question, and I will change the article.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 07:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not required to demonstrate a precedent or edit some other article for you. The policies and guidelines have been laid out before you time and again. You, and all other editors, must not commit original research or original synthesis. A baby turkey[citation needed] 07:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I happen to know that many editors, including admins, have looked over that page and found it satisfactory. That page makes a stronger implication than this one.  We're not changing the rules established on that page because you don't like what you see on this page.  If you prefer, I will look through the page's history and give you the names of the admins who deemed it satisfactory.  If you can convince them, that will convince me.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 07:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The other page remains irrelevant. The rules were not established on that page; the rules are listed in the content guidelines and policies. See WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale" as represented by our guidelines and policies. A baby turkey[citation needed] 07:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're saying it was an exception. There was no debate for those edits.  It was implicitly understood that requiring a specific string to be written on an obscure topic was unreasonable.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 07:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The link WP:CONSENSUS discusses situations where consensus-based editing does not prevail. The item relevant to our situation is that we cannot all agree to ignore a rule that has wider consensus in the community (and hence is a guideline or policy). Hence, we cannot simply agree that your original interpretation of primary sources is correct and so ignore the requirement that secondary sources provide interpretation to our articles, as this latter requirement has a wider consensus than whatever agreement we may decide on this page. A baby turkey[citation needed] 20:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You say we're ignoring policy. We're not.  Let me give you an example.  Would it be fair to include the number 38160784967018760687061 in Integer even if we had no secondary source explicitly calling 38160784967018760687061 an Integer?  We know the definition.  There are an infinite number of possibilities to include on that page as examples.  The same is true here.  We know the definition of discrimination.  We need only satisfy that definition to add it to the article.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 20:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We must rely on experts to decide what is discrimination. As John Vanderberg has emphasized below, the topic is rather complex and as Wikipedians we are not permitted to interpret primary sources ourselves, particularly for contentious claims as these. Please do not argue in favor of including original research in the article, thank you. A baby turkey[citation needed] 21:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. He's talking about the section on scripture.  These are examples.  They're different.  I asked you if you disagreed that these examples are discriminatory.  You have not disagreed.  Who exactly is contesting them such that these examples earn the description of "contentious"?  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 21:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

On a topic like this, every aspect of the article needs to be based on secondary sources. The entire section Discrimination_against_atheists is making suggestions that these passages have caused discrimination, but this is not very well founded by citations to scholarly views. (there are some in the Koran section) As has been said elsewhere on this talk page, we need to add sources that discuss these passages and how they relate to discrimination, oppression and apostasy. Simply tossing a verse at a reader is wrong, as there are mountains of scholarly views about every single verse in the Bible and the Koran, so there is no need to just provide verses and require that the reader figure out how relevant it is. These passages do not discriminate; people do. Scholarly opinion is needed to link the two and demonstrate how much effect these passages have had on people who have discriminated. Anyone with half a brain knows that these passages are pretty poignant examples of what has motivated people, but these sections have been tagged as OR because we need to alert readers (and editors) that we havent yet added information to put these passages in context using secondary sources. Also, it is worth keeping in mind that the concept of discrimination was not a concern when these passages were written-- i.e. they were not written for the purpose of discrimination; the underlying motive was very different - nation building and ethnic cleansing are more apt descriptions for the motivations behind these passages. Above you say that "murdering people is discrimination". That statement is inaccurate if "discrimination" is not the intended motive. We dont call war an act of discrimination, because even though they overlap, they are fundamentally very different beasts. Jews who didn't believe in the one God were put to death or expelled from the country. OTOH, the U.S. state constitutions were written in a time when discrimination was a concept people understood, those affected where citizens of the country and numerous enough that the lawmakers realised the result of the laws they were writing, but the states still thought it was a good thing to exclude them from certain offices :- that is discrimination as we know it. One of the reasons why dont permit original research, or we aggressively tag it, is that it is easy to come to misleading conclusions by making a few unqualified statements like "murdering people is discrimination" in a sequence ends up with some very bizarre results. If a scholar does that, their papers get rejected and we never get an opportunity to cite them. The peer-review process ensures that what we cite is well reasoned. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you kind administrator sir, :( that's all I ever wanted. -- Enzuru 15:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweden
The original research appears to jump in after "there exist laws that could be considered discriminatory towards atheists." A good portion of the items do not involve reliable sources explicitly associating "discrimination against atheists." The source called "Lag" I cannot check, but I also suspect it is a primary source or otherwise does not actually make the interpretative jump.

I'm going to go after this, but at quick glance it seems that the case about the Swedish Humanist Association could possibly be forged into an appropriate passage. Are there any general comments or defenses? A baby turkey[citation needed] 07:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

two other U.S. state cases
In the article I used as a reference for the BSA case, two other cases are mentioned:

Gray, Tennesse: Carletta Sims joined a financial firm in June 2001. Shortly afterward, two Baptist coworkers took offense upon learning that Sims was an atheist. Management granted the coworkers' request to be assigned workspaces further from Sims. When Sims complained about a picture of Jesus left on her computer, management discharged her. Sims filed suit, seeking $250,000; U.S. District Judge Thomas Hull ruled that "religious discrimination (or preferential treatment of Christians) can be inferred." In January 2004, the major bank that had since acquired the firm settled with Sims for an undisclosed amount.

Caro, Michigan: In December 2001, Anonka--an open atheist who maintains a museum of Christian religious atrocities--appeared before the Tuscola County Board of Commissioners to challenge a nativity scene placed on public land. Commissioners responded angrily, saying she had no right to be present and proceeding to ridicule her. Anonka and her family suffered repeated harassment including annoyance calls, threatening calls and letters, and vandalism. In February 2004, the county settled in U.S. District Court, agreeing to pay an undisclosed sum and to issue a "public expression of regret."

John Vandenberg (chat) 12:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Lots of work needed
This article, besides the original research problems, fundamentally comes across as more of a brochure for atheism than a balanced and encyclopedic article. I'm not saying that the topic isn't encyclopedic, or that the current one is blatantly pushing a view (or else I would have tagged the whole thing NPOV), but that it just reads more like a rant with a scattershot of examples than an objective presentation point by point with an actual flow and logic to it. And I say that as an atheist myself, by the way. We are not here to convince (and the lead is especially direct in stating claims without any sources and which a number of people would disagree), we are here to describe. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is exactly how I feel. -- Enzuru 15:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Under siege
Please demonstrate your good faith here by discussing major changes, especially deletions before you implement them.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 20:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now why didn't you extend the same favor to us when you included tons of quotes and primary sources in the article? Why didn't you demonstrate "good faith," and obtain consensus before implementing? Much of the problem (and the need for deletions) has been created by your controversial additions, so please show "good faith" and remove them. Otherwise your request here that we extend such great courtesy to you carries little weight. A baby turkey[citation needed] 20:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * These edits were here before I found the article. I didn't add them.  I'm defending them.  In addition, they are in no way controversial as YOU HAVEN'T EVEN DISPUTED THEM.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 20:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ehm? I found this article because you asked for help creating and expanding the section on the Qur'an, the same section I disputed (and on the same basis, the other scripture-based sections). And tone down the caps, we've disputed the breaking of WP:original research several times. -- Enzuru 21:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what I mean. You convinced me with the comment about literal discrimination is meaningless unless people interpret it that way that the scripture should focus on mainstream interpretations.  I'm talking about the examples.  Turkey is saying they need to be cited when these trivially satisfy the definition of discrimination.  He has not pointed to any example and said, "that is not discrimination."  Thus they are undisputed, not sure why he's pressing for citation for something he agrees satisfies the definition.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 21:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's actually not too weird. Everything on Wikipedia should be cited, someone pushing you for a citation on something even they believe in (even I do this on articles!) is not something to be worried about. I've more than once deleted content on Wikipedia that I believed in, or even wrote, because of the lack of citations. -- Enzuru 21:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not here to dispute or agree with any of the interpretations given, but rather I am here to insist that we follow policy and use reliable secondary sources to back interpretations and determine content instead of our own judgment. A baby turkey[citation needed] 21:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, if these examples satisfy the definition of discrimination, they don't need to be cited. I've quoted policy, and I've cited precedent. Requiring every word on Wiki to be written by someone else would intefere with the writing of the encyclopedia. We're authors, not plagiarizers.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 21:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is he's also cited policy quite a bit. What I see as part of the issue is instead of citing materials on discrimination, we are citing everything and anything to prove points. There are entire books written on discrimination, we should be citing from this material, where the word discrimination is actually used. It may seem silly, but that is how policy and Wikipedia works. There are few to none articles on Wikipedia that cite sources where the article name itself cannot even be found, like we are doing here! -- Enzuru 21:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't need you to tell me how policy works. I've been here for quite awhile and I've even been called a WP:Wikilawyer.  You could argue that every word written on Wikipedia is written to prove some point.  Now that I think about it, you could argue that every coherent sentence has a point.  A point-driven article is not violating policy nor unprecedented.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 21:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, being called a Wikilawyer in no way proves that you understand or are following policy. That normally means that someone is arguing about stuff constantly to try to get your way over what the policies actually mean. That's not a good thing. DreamGuy (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It means I know policy well enough that someone considers my knowledge of it unfair.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 22:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think wording is quite that important. If a reliable source says that x group of Muslims believe in killing unbelievers because of some piece of scripture, it doesn't need to use the actual word discrimination.  A reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge can work out that that is discriminatory.  We need the source that someone is taking it that way, though, or else should we include some Greek mythology in here that says to kill those who don't believe in Zeus? (Can't say for certain that exists, just making a point.) —Jomasecu &#91;T•C&#93; 21:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've also conceeded to focusing more on interpretations of scripture as every verse in scripture is typically debated.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Under siege" -- you've got to be kidding me, AzureFury. People are just trying to get this article to meet Wikipedia standards. You do not WP:OWN this article, despite your clear indications that you think you do. DreamGuy (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If that were the case, they would respond to my definition based argument rather than just repeating the secondary source argument. So far, the examples are completely uncontested.  Not one editor has had the courage to say that they are not discrimination.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 22:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't even know how your response has anything to do with my comment. The material I removed, that you restored, and which you are now complaining about deletions and an article under siege, have nothing to do with whether it is discrimination or not and secondary sources, etc. Whatever you are on about, your attitude is completely uncivil, and your edits, from what I ahve seen anyway, violate a whole slew of Wikipedia policies, like WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL (for talk page comments). Please take it down a notch. As I said, I don't see that your complaints so far have any merit, and they certainly don't justify the complaint you made at the top of this section. It's not under siege just because people are making edits you do not agree with, you don't get to say edits can't be made without your approval first, and so forth and so on. DreamGuy (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I went back to the above and reread the back and forth to see what you are even talking about regarding secondary sources. The problem with that is they have accurately pointed out that your edits do not comply with policy when it comes to secondary sources, and you just ignore it and try to claim what you know about discrimination. Anything YOU know or conclude about discrimination, or anyone here, is by definition original research, which is prohibited. We NEED secondary sources that are reliable. That is NOT optional. If you dispute that, go try to get the policy changed (and good luck with that, it'll never happen), because ignoring it isn't an option. DreamGuy (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:POT before you talk to me about civility. You've ignored the fact that I have quoted policy as well, as have other editors.  If you're not going to respond to my policy based argument, then I'm not going to respond to you.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 01:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, he spoke to you in a much nicer way than you spoke to me, I wouldn't say he broke WP:UNCIVIL. -- Enzuru 05:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not complicate things by debating over whose container of incivility is more full. I've noticed myself being more aggressive than perhaps was necessary in some of these debates, but I have not broken any rules, and typically the dispute was resolved amiably to the satisfaction of all editors involved.  I can think of at least two situations where this was the case.  Three if you count the dispute over the Koran verses (as that is in the process of being resolved to everyone's satisfaction hopefully).  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 05:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am very happy we did solve the issue, and I thank you for that. But I did feel you handled things a bit aggressively/uncivilly, but that's just my two cents. I tell you this as someone who has had the same aggressive/uncivil issue as well, though I've made some strides recently. -- Enzuru 05:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oath vs Affirmation
We have a bit of an edit war going on regarding whether Oath vs Affirmation is relevant; no secondary sources have been provided. I've searched for secondary sources relating to "Discrimination oath affirmation" and found nothing, and also searched the web. Why is Oath vs Affirmation relevant? Has it ever been relevant in the U.S.? Is there any example of it being relevant to discrimination in the U.S. It might be relevant in other countries, for examples this might be of interest if someone can track down which wording they are debating and the current status of it. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I explained in the previous debate still visible on this talk page, and on your talk page, it is not discrimination. I do not consider it discrimination and it is in no way implied to be discrimination in the article.  It is relevant because many people do not realize that affirmation is an option.  If it was not an option, it would be discrimination.  I've included it here specifically to say that it is NOT discrimination.  I am trying to inform.  What is your motivation?  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 01:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you can demonstrate that it has ever been considered an issue in USA, it is not relevant on this page, or at least not in the USA section. Have atheists in USA ever felt this is relevant to the issue of discrimination?  If not, it is taking up space unnecessarily and leads the reader to wonder whether there is a discrimination issue.  As I said on my talk, we need secondary sources that indicate this is relevant. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not need to show that it was viewed as discrimination in the United States as that would demonstrate WP:systemic bias. I have seen people, especially from Europe, asking this exact thing which is why I originally added it.  Please cite the wiki policy that says relevance is determined by secondary sources.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 02:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "What you have seen" is the very definition of original research. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What I've seen is not in the article. What I've seen inspired me to add this.  That does not violate wiki policy.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 04:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Gordon, you have not cited policy saying that secondary sources determine relevance.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 05:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The subsection that I trimmed is in a section called "United States". i.e. it is implying that the oath vs affirmation is relevant to the topic of discrimination within USA.  As I said above, I dont think it is relevant in the USA; it might be relevant in other countries, in which case it might be worth mentioning outside of the "United States" section.
 * Relevance is best measured by the quantity and quality of secondary sources; conversely if you cant find any secondary sources, it is likely to not be relevant, because you are the first person to decide it is relevant. See Relevance of content: "All of Wikipedia's content must be verifiable. The relevance of information is best demonstrated by the provision of reliable sources, and of suitable context." John Vandenberg (chat) 06:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relevance of content is an essay, not a policy. The section is about the US and it informs people outside the US.  This is exactly what Wikipedia should do.  I asked you to quote policy and you have not.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 06:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure the applicable policy is Neutral_point_of_view. To quote: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Since the prominence of Affirmation issue in US in relation to discrimination of atheists is ZERO, the article should have ZERO mentions of it, otherwise you are giving the issue undue weight.--Hq3473 (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Americans really do have a tendency for political correctness ! You should compare more often USA with other countries. The question of the oath vs. affirmation issue is that there is a double standard for all citizens, if they believe or not in God. If USA were a more true secular state, like most countries in Europe, there would be a secular, non religious, oath for every citizen. I think this makes the case and why this issue is also relevant. There is also a tendency to see that the oath is more valuable then the affirmation because of the reference to God, which seems to indicates even more distrust of non-theistic people. 213.13.244.166 (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you find sources saying the same thing we should include this.--Hq3473 (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC

 * Well, it is probably a good idea to summarise concisely (unless i missed it) what really is the specific dispute, people just dont have the time to read all article and talk pages to find out it themselves, well, unless of course, if the whole article is a problem. I was recently involved in an article called Discrimination against Biharis in India, whose title is now changed to Anti-Bihari sentiment in India. Interestingly, I identify similar problems here.


 * This sentence, "In the modern United Kingdom, the monarch must be a member of the Church of England, as he or she is the nominal head of this religion." if included in "British Monarch" article is not necessarily original research, but certainly is here.


 * yes, the preceding statement sounds like descrimination against atheists, but it also sounds like descrimination against all other religions. It sounds more like pro-Church of England than descrimination against other religions or atheists. Therefore, it is not a clear cut case as "38160784967018760687061 is an Integer" or "Sky is blue".


 * Yes, primary sources can be used descriptively, but the mere fact that the information included in any form, only with the help of primary sources, but, under the current title would make it original research. We need reliable secondary sources which explicitly call these statements as descrimination. Without that, all similar statements should go off the article.  Docku:  What up?  01:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like discrimination against all other religions so it's not discrimination? What?  In addition, the article does not explicitly call the examples discrimination.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 01:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it sounds to me that way. it may sound different to you. That is exactly why it is original research, performed by you and me.  Docku:  What up?  01:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like what to you, that discrimination against multiple groups is not discrimination?  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 01:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me point out, that in the article you mentioned, Anti-Bihari sentiment in India, there are examples included whose sources do not include the word "discrimination." The first one I found was this: "Bihar has a per capita income of $148 a year against India's average of $997. Given this income dispartity, migrant workers moved to better paid locations and offered to work at lower rates.".  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 01:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * May be I did not mention that I am not yet in full agreement with that article and therefore, I dont want to go through specific examples. Do you also see a synthesis tag on the article.  Docku:  What up?  01:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it isn't discrimination... being C of E is a qualification for the job of King or Queen of England. Part of the job discription of the Monarch is being the head of the Church of England, and you can not be head of a Church if you do not belong to that Church.  Seriously, this is like arguing that the Anglican Church discriminates against Atheists because they require the Archbishop of Cantebury to be Anglican, or that the Catholic Church discriminates against Atheists because they reguire the Pope to be Catholic.  Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Blueboar. The question seem to me to be one about the normal use of English. Also the position of Monarch is also hereditary, it therefore 'discriminates' against anyone who is not the heir to the throne. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. I've deleted it.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 18:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved RFC comment. So the entire dispute is over whether the English Monarch's religious requirement is discrimination against atheists? Why not discrimination against Jews or Hindus? I agree with removal. If this issue is resolved, please deactivate the tag. Cool Hand Luke 17:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Other articles that list discrimination without "discrimination" in the source
I understand that a big chunk of this dispute is whether or not my interpretation of policy is valid, and whether or not it would contradict a wider community consensus. Therefore, I am going to list here articles that do the exact same thing as has been done in this article: list an example of discrimination that is not called discrimination in the source. This list is by no means comprehensive; it took less than 15 minutes to create, with most of that time spent writing this section. Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 02:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Discrimination against Christians: "prohibition on Bibles"
 * Antisemitism in the Arab world: "A Saudi government website initially stated that Jews would not be granted tourist visas to enter the country."
 * Religious discrimination against Neopagans: "In 1999, in response to a statement by Representative Bob Barr (R-GA, now Libertarian) regarding Wiccan gatherings on military bases, the Free Congress Foundation called for U.S. citizens to not enlist or re-enlist in the U.S. Army until the Army terminated the on-base freedoms of religion, speech and assembly for all Wiccan soldiers."
 * I thought this was answered before, just because it's done in other articles does not make it correct in this one? -- Enzuru 07:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The argument was, "just because this is done in one article doesn't make it correct in this one."  I've demonstrated that it is done in many articles.  This is a demonstration of a wider consensus.  I have evidence on my side.  The deleting authors now have nothing but words.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 07:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know, several times I've seen a very problematic issue continued through many articles. For example, a long time ago the articles on many points on Islamic history were all consistently Shi'a POV. And across the board one could find many articles, even FA-Class, breaking important rules and ciations. But, we'll see what other editors have to say. -- Enzuru 08:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They argued what policy was. I argued what policy was.  They argued what community consensus was.  I showed what community consensus is.  This debate is over.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 08:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Showing individual examples of things within articles that you think supports your side is not showing what consensus is. Showing articles full of spam links (of which there are many) doesn't prove that spam is allowed, just that n editor following policy hasn't taken care of it yet (or that an other spammer moved through since the last time spam was cleared out). DreamGuy (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No. You do not get away with, "every article is wrong."  You've lost.  Time to end this war after you've been so decisively refuted.  Show your good faith and drop this.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not every article is wrong, just the ones you tracked down. We follow what policies say, and those are quite clear on the matter. And it's pretty clear that you were the one who decisively refuted. What's strangest of all is why you choose to see as as enemies or accuse of us bad faith when you know that a good portion of us have said we are not religious and would like an article to give examples of discrimination against atheists. We are on your side, but it needs to be done following Wikipedia policies and not just whatever thing you think up off your head. We are all trying to help you get what you say you want, but apparently you were too stubborn to even recognize that. Perhaps the week block will get you some much needed perspective on things. DreamGuy (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've shown that I'm following policy just like every article I can find is following policy. Your argument amounts to "might makes right" but we know that wikipedia is note a vote.  You say that you are editting in good faith.  Why were several reversions made without an edit summary or a response on the talk page, and at least two reversions made listed as "minor" edits?  Am I to interpret this as good faith editting? 67.183.198.99 (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Debate must be over
I see that the deleting editors are no longer participating in the discussion. Good. I'll just delete the original research tags and continue trying to improve the article.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 07:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, unless you want it demonstrated that your understanding of what constitutes consensus is as poor as your understanding of what constitutes original research. Silence is not consent; an argument quieting down for twenty minutes doesn't mean you are correct. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Two editors reverted without even posting a comment on the talk page. And you, gordon, listed your 4400 character deletion as a minor edit and did not include an edit summary.  There goes your assumption of good faith.  Shame on you.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 18:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No. People not responding within a timetable you set does not mean that you can do anything you want to the article. You do not WP:OWN this article. The bottom line here, AzureFury, is that you can ignore what multiple editors said if you want, but you cannot edit the article while ignoring a very clear consensus. Based upon the conversation here, we have demonstrated that you CANNOT remove the OR tags and make othr edits as spelled out to you above until you somehow get a consensus of editors to believe your concept of what policy means. Good luck on that. Until then you know you are wrong and will not be allowed to get away with what you want to do. DreamGuy (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You want to talk about ignoring editors? You are ignoring the wider consensus.  I have demonstrated conclusively how policy is handled in this situation.  You do not get to ignore policy because of your skewed interpretation of WP:OR.  I am not going to listen to another word you have to say (assuming you were going to say anything else and not just edit war) unless you can explain to me why we should ignore the community consensus on the interpretation of WP:OR in this case.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 18:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * AzureFury, I suggest that you do listen to what others are trying to explain to you here. Multiple editors have disagreed with your interpretation of WP:OR, both on this page and now on the WP:NORN.  I am joining them.  Much of this article appears to me to be a classic example of original research, in which editors have added examples of something that they view to be discriminative, and citing them to the primary sources (laws, regulations etc).  We need to find secondary sources which describe significant examples of discrimination, as described below. Finding examples in other WP articles that also violate policy does nothing to prove what the policy is supposed to be. --Slp1 (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. I've refuted this citing the very policy you accuse this article of violating.  A reasonable educated person can infer that these examples are discrimination.  If you disagree with my interpretation, we ask the community.  The community says I am right.  Repeating your argument does not make it less refuted, no matter how many editors you get to echo it.  This page will remain as it is until someone responds to and refutes my argument.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 19:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, to date, the community, as exemplified by multiple editors, administrators, one outgoing and one incoming arbitrator, as well as commentators with expertise in OR from the WP:NORN, strongly disagrees with you and has explained why. You are showing signs of page ownership issues here ("This page will remain as it is until someone responds to and refutes my argument"). I realize that you probably put a lot of work into this article, but I strongly urge you to consider that you might be in error in this matter. We've all been there I am sure. It really is no big deal.  --Slp1 (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep saying you have consensus and yet every article on wikipedia disagrees with you. You've not yet responded to my argument.  The article will remain unchanged.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 21:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Your only option
Since I have irrefutably demonstrated that trivial examples of discrimination may be included without a secondary source according to WP:OR, the only option left to the deleting editors is to cite specific examples and provide a convincing argument that they do not satisfy the definition of discrimination. I should not have had to explain this, but in doing so I have demonstrated my good faith in the face of unapologetically stubborn opposition. I listened to your comments about the UK example. I deleted it. Rather than gut the article, why don't we try to improve it one example at a time?  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 20:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Try to relax, Azure. Not everyone's against you. I agree that articles might as well contain all manner of unsourced rubbish and be improved by sourcing counter-claims one by one. Trivial, well-known examples are real, and there is a limit to the scepticism that should be tolerated if thrown against such things. People misquote Jimbo on this matter regularly. Aggressive removal of unsourced slander against living people is mandatory, and unsourced rubbish can be removed at any time; however, non-slanderous rubbish does not have to be removed, sometimes allowing it to stand is part of proceeding calmly towards consensus and taking time to encourage defenders of such stuff to remove it themselves.
 * Stay calm, Azure. Wikipedia has not been, and will not be built in a day. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Update

 * AzureFury has been blocked for 24 hours by another administrator, and I have also reverted the edits and blocked the IP of a probable block-evading sock.
 * For the future, all editors are warned not to edit war. Honestly, in the great scheme of things, this article really is not that important.  Having said that, there have been multiple independent opinions from experienced editors that this article is full of original research and synthesis. Secondary sources need to be found to back up the claims made here that these laws etc are discriminatory.  This is important per no original research which requires claims to be directly and explicitly supported by the source used, meaning in this case that these laws etc have been considered by other sources to be discriminative against atheists. Proper secondary sourcing is also important as otherwise we may be giving undue weight to certain claims: unless claims of discrimination against atheists has been noted by others, then it would be inappropriate of us to mention it in WP.  As Doug Weller pointed out above, for many claims finding secondary sources should not be difficult with a bit of leg work.  In the meantime, please do not restore the disputed material without consensus.  Contrary to AzureFury's suggestion above, the onus is on the adding or readding editor to justify the inclusion of material.  If AzureFury wishes to argue for inclusion, then that is fine, but s/he needs to get consensus for here first.  And in my view,  there is also plenty of other material in this article that needs proper secondary sourcing or deletion. --Slp1 (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Another update: AzureFury has been blocked for a week by yet a different admin for editing the article while signed out of his account during the 24 hour block. If we come up with the sources and rewrite this thing so that it meets Wikipedia standards he might even be happy with the results when he comes back instead of just reverting back to his own version. DreamGuy (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is my IP. Good call on that one. 67.183.198.99 (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's always sad to hear about blockings. I think we should give Azure the best chance possible to help build this article. Your second sentence above is perfect for that. The first sentence just draws attention to personal and past things. Please consider removing the first sentence, and if you do, please delete this post of mine too. Let's also set an example of keeping things nice and open. Waddya say, DreamGuy? :) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a very strange request. I've been more than civil to someone who clearly was not returning the favor. I do hope he gets off on the right foot when he comes back, but the people here have a right to know that someone who held the article hostage won't be around for a week and we can finally have a conversation on fixing the problems with the article without someone saying we aren't allowed to do anything he opposes. DreamGuy (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Pete Stark Reference
Why was removed the reference that in all the USA History, Pete Stark is currently the first and only non theistic congressmen ? I am sorry but people should realise that this article is open to all points of view, and the idea that in many countries of Europe there are like 40-60 % of non theistic congressmen and in the USA there´s only one seems relevant. Maybe not indicates openly "discrimination" but how the religious mentality in the USA makes very difficult to have more openly atheist and agnostic congressmen and politicians in general. Remember there are 10 % of non religious people in the USA. That is more then mormons, for example.213.13.244.166 (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it hard to believe Pete Stark is the first non-theistic congressman in the USA. 10% non-theists in the US population also seems like a huge underestimate. I've got to ask if there are sources for those. Gimme a moment and I'll be back with references to prove the two claims false. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, the source provided at the Wiki article on Stark (The New York Sun) convinces me that Stark is indeed the first federal US politician to attempt to argue that his atheism is beneficial in a political role. However, it is important to note that it also says: "The Sun contacted the six members of Congress found to be 'unaffiliated' in that survey, Mark Udall of Colorado, Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, John Olver and John Tierney of Massachusetts, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin."
 * It explains what I've felt sometimes at Wikipedia, that many US citizens are familiar with Christians and don't like them. I never get that in Australia, there's only about 3% church attendence in this country. Christians are a novelty here. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a 2007 study (The Pew Forum) that gives US citizens unaffiliated with any religious group at 16%, claiming 18–29 y.o.s are unaffiliated at about 25%. I'll check around a bit to see if there's any US government data online. There should be publically available census information from governments sources, unless US law forbids that kind of thing. Religious affiliation is part of Australian census questioning every four years. It's so easy and so wrong to think that everyone does it the way we do it isn't it? :) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Back again. Here is an interesting graphic available from USA Today. I've only checked a couple of states, but it looks to me like the largest group in many states is Catholic, followed by "no religion", Christian (no denomination specified) comes in 3rd place. In my ignorant opinion, many people who call themselves Christian with no specifics are refering vaguely to a traditional family background, not a particular personal conviction.
 * I also discovered that the US ten-year census does not collect religious affiliation information, though Canada, like Australia does do so. Apparently, though, City University of New York has conducted graduate surveys, these were reporting 20% unaffiliation almost 20 years ago.
 * I'll stop with what I've just scooped up from a casual surf over the surface of the web. Anyone can gather this information. I don't know whether Wiki needs more atheists or more Christians or more whatever. But definitely Wiki needs more surfers! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up WP:SYNTH
I says let's start at the top and work our way through each example. Here is two from the top.
 * 1) Egyptian Identification Card Controversy seems to discriminate against everyone who is not Muslim Christan or Jewish. Can we find sources that say that the egypt specifically targets atheists?
 * 2)  Germany: the alleged discrimination seems to be a requirement for fee to de-register from the "church tax", how ever there does not seem to be a requirement to register for tax church in the first place. I might be mistaken about this. Do we have sources claiming that Germany registers everyone for tax church by default and requires atheists to pay a fee to de-register? --Hq3473 (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * According to church tax, The church tax is only paid by members of the respective church. People who are not member of a church tax-collecting denomination do not have to pay it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well right, but the alleged discrimination is that while they don't have to pay the tax, they HAVE to pay the "de-registration fee". Can we somehow clarify this?--Hq3473 (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dunno. The German article -- Kirchensteuer (Deutschland) -- seems to indicate that the obligation to pay tax simply ceases at the end of the month (or the next month) following resignation from the church, though there might still be a liability since the tax is a percentage of annual income. Perhaps, though, there are sources somewhere that indicate otherwise. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * RE: Egyptian IDs: Discrimination against a group is discrimination against any part of that group. Group not-Christian-Muslim-or-Jewish includes atheists. This is easily understandable with no specialist knowledge.  —Jomasecu ( t•c ) 22:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I expect we can confirm the Egyptian ID. Indonesia does the same, but permits Hindu and Buddhist.
 * I have heard that the Indonesian identity card (id:KTP) made religious affiliation mandatory to suppress Communism, which is ideologically atheist. It was not the atheism of Communism that mattered, but the potential for Communism to lead to civil unrest. It was a clever policy to use something popular, like religion, to keep down something reasonably popular, Communism, but unwanted by the authorities at the time.
 * I would think there are many sources that will outline Indonesia as a classic example of marginalising atheism, though it would be fair to point out that this is throwing the atheist "bath water" out with the Communist "baby". Sources will explain it much better than I can. Google "Indonesia" "KTP" "religion" (id:agama). Here's a recent report. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * With European traditions of relationship between church and state, we can go back a very long way. Jesus of Nazareth is claimed to have spoken on the topic in the New Testament. Those words are still a phrase in the English language, and here at Wiki: Render unto Caesar... In context, Jesus was telling Jewish people to pay the Roman tax that was kind of "protection money" extortion to allow them to continue to worship their God in his temple.
 * The point here is that even if there is no discrimination against atheists, proving that fact requires serious interaction with many sources. And this is still notable under this topic. I am sure that European history will show that people at large were often compelled to contribute to State interests on the basis of religious excuses. I'm fairly sure writers will point out that there are many injustices in this, but one of those would be a presumption or insistance that all believe in the state God or gods.
 * I think it is already documented in the article that the most common ground for Roman persecution of Christians was that they were "atheists". It is a curious thing that so many Christians have died in systematic discrimination against "atheists".
 * Finally, I think the philosophers who provided a basis for Communism actually had a point in seeing that governments used religion to control people. The solution adopted was to throw the religious "bathwater" out with the "baby" of combining church and state.
 * One section of this article could show how the ideas of religious toleration and separation of church and state grew out of many writers thinking through issues they certainly saw as matters of injustice and discrimination. Historically, religion was a form of both science and politics. As both scientific and political theory have advanced, it has been possible for science and government to stand on foundations stronger than metaphysical speculation, and hence to achieve independence. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Something needs to be interjected here... it is one thing for we (wikipedia editors) to debate here on the talk page whether a given law or constitution discriminates against Atheists, it is another thing entirely to state that it does so in the article. In order to include such a statement in the article, we have to cite a reliable source that states that it is discrimination. So, for example, if we are going to say that the Egyptian ID card is discriminatory we need to cite a reliable source that says (or at least claims) that the Egyptian ID card is discriminatory. It does not matter whether we think it is discrimiation (or even whether we "are possitive" that it is). The threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not "Truth". For each law etc. listed, we need a reliable source to say "this is discrimination". Blueboar (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly -- but not just that a reliable, nontrivial third party source says it's discriminatory but that it's discriminatory against atheists and not just everyoe in the world accept the group doing the discrimination. DreamGuy (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys, I agree with you. But we've got to take a broader view. The US constitution was drawn up to allow religious freedom because, at that time, England had a clear history of state intervention in religious matters. These things are extremely well documented. They are relevant whether they use the precise term "discrimination" (which is merely a modern political slogan word) or whether they explicitly include the right to not have a religion (which I suspect they do).
 * I am grateful for the clear grasp of policy forbidding original research, i.e. synthesizing a case at this article, especially from unreliable sources, that is expressed by the editors above. What's on my mind though is the tricky job of helping the article move forwards. Where will we find sources? What kind of issues are well documented, so that we have a place to start. I'll try to dump some early US history sources here. Although we'll need to expand to world-wide and all-history coverage, the US is likely to be very well documented and many Wiki editors motivated to source and articulate the relevant issues clearly.
 * Perhaps I'm launching off in the wrong direction. But can people see the idea (stupid as it may be): rather than just telling people what's wrong, can we outline a strategy that might work? That way we're opening doors, not closing them. It's inviting, and it's still responsible. We add good stuff until people just don't want to cling to the rubbish stuff any more. They loosen their grip voluntarily, see what I mean?
 * That's enough for now. Is my point hopelessly unclear? I'm happy to explain it in more detail. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that is not the way wikipedia works. We shouldn't leave the rubbish stuff if it is rubbish... and especially when it violates one of the core editing policies of the project (WP:NOR).  I do think that a decent article can probably be written on this topic, but the current article isn't it.  The current article is so riddled with original research, that I think is beyond simple repair.  The best articles are those where you start with the sources and then write an article based upon what they say.  So...  I suggest that we remove the OR material and stuff that is not properly sourced, then hit the books and slowly begin to rebuild a new article, based upon what the reliable sources say.  Yes, this approach guts the article in the short term... but the long term end result will be a much better article. Blueboar (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey ho, a version of inclusion v. deletionism. I'll not dispute that here, since we have the same aim. I think a lot comes down to whether people prefer being the good cop or the bad cop, we need both.
 * Anyway John Jamieson Carswell Smart and John Joseph Haldane, Atheism and Theism, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), pp. 6–75 is kindly online thanks to the publishers. In Smart's section there is a lot of background literature cited. I expect most readers will be interested in current issues of suppressed atheism, but we probably do need some historical context. Who was the first atheist? What are the first identifiably atheist works? Were any of them suppressed or burned? Is it fair to say there have been many who have been sceptical of official religion throughout history? What secondary sources will point us to the primary source evidence of this? And any evidence of suppression in those historical contexts?
 * The Wiki article Opium of the People gives a couple of secondary sources that could open doors to a lot of 19th century theories of state oppression in the form of religion, they were immensely influential theories.
 * Anyway, I think I've offered all I can manage given other priorities atm. Best wishes to all parties at this page. I may drop by from time to time to cheer, but I could be "one too many cooks" otherwise I think. Cheerio. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So... let me see if I'm understanding consensus here. (I don't mean for this to come off as aggressive/sarcastic, but the idea seems a little silly to me.)  If we have a reliable source saying that in Egypt, someone who is not a Muslim, Christian, or Jew cannot vote, be employed, recieve medical treatment, get married, or obtain any kind of official documentation, we need another source to actually call that discrimination before we can include it?  Common sense can't be put in play here?  —Jomasecu ( t•c ) 18:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. We need a reliable source that describes it as discrimination against atheists; otherwise, we're synthesizing. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I see, everyone who has commented so far acknowledges the original research and sythensis in the article except AzureFury. I am confused about the position taken by Alastair Haines. Please correct me if i am wrong.


 * My understanding of the consensus is to gut the whole article of all original research and start from scratch again. May be we can conduct a poll to assess the situtaion.  Docku:  What up?  21:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If x meets definition y, and word z is defined as y, x is a form of z. This is not synthesis, this is basic logic that a child could understand.  We need a source to tell us that if x is y and y is z then x is z?  We seem to have decided that an understanding of the English language is original research. —Jomasecu ( t•c ) 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * sorry, didnt mention ur name. WP:Synthesis says "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article" what you call logic is called synthesis in wikipedia.  Docku:  What up?  22:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about combining two sources. I'm talking about combining one source with basic English comprehension. —Jomasecu ( t•c ) 22:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Pls consider it carefully. it will make sense to you.  Docku:  What up?  22:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Docku: It's kind of you to include my thoughts in your summation, Docku. I don't oppose gutting, I only oppose frustrating Azure where this is unnecessary. Most of my posts regard suggestions for how to restart the article, with sources to support those suggestions. The agreement to gut is fine. I've just stolen a march by suggesting where to start the rebuilding. I'll be away for a month. Please feel free to ignore my input if you wish, I shan't be around to follow-up or assist much I'm afraid. Cheers.
 * @ Jomasecu: Yes, I think you are absolutely right. The word discrimination can be absolutely absent from a source and that source still be perfectly well suited to this article, with no sense of original research at all. Indeed, it is original research to suggest that scholastic discussion of discrimination is always conducted by using that word and that word only.
 * Since there is some debate about the scope of what can be included under the heading Discrimination, a few choice sources that define it might be useful. Perhaps some that do so independent of the context of the article, and some that discuss applications of the idea to the current topic.
 * Best wishes all Alastair Haines (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What you can't do is pick raw facts, point to them, and say "that's discrimination against atheists". "Discrimination" (at least in American English; I don't know about other dialects) has varying semantics. It's discrimination for me to choose something I like over something I don't like; every act of editing on Wikipedia, for example, is an act of discrimination. "Discrimination" in the sense of "bigotry" is what we're dealing with here, though -- and it's a subjective, not an objective matter, to decide if (for example) restrictions on a monarch, or religious tests in a constitution, are discrimination-as-bigotry. Hence the need for reliable sources -- which shouldn't be hard to find. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the word 'discrimination' can have positive meaning as well as negative... think of the phrase: "a person of discriminating taste". Obviously, this article intends a more negative definition... one more in line with the definition of "discrimination" under the law. And for that you do need sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"Atheophobia" - reliable source?
As mentioned in the edit comments where I removed this, the fact that just one person with no known notability or expertise uses the term Atheophobia in no way proves anyone else in the world does. The sites being linked to, frankly, do not even count as reliable sources in general (a personal website and a website anyone is allowed to edit, no expertise needed), so I wouldn't even be safe in assuming someone with that name ever really used the term. Who are they, anyway, and why does the editor who keeps putting that back think anyone cares what that person thinks? DreamGuy (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * DreamGuy, I apologise for not being au fait with all the rules. I got the h2g2 page from a google search, and as far as I can tell the h2g2 page I'm now referencing is 'Recommended' and will soon be an 'Edited' article - it has been peer reviewed by the site. The personal site was linked to from the users page on that website, and until I read the rules I thought it would be fair game. I've found some other sources, by different people no less, so hopefully you'll see fit to stop bashing some random guy/girl because I referenced them. I've removed the h2g2 user's name from your post as, although their name is up on the article on h2g2, I don't see why they should be used as a straw man for this discussion. Dorkins (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, I've found a source from a journal from twenty years ago. If that's not enough, nothing will be. I'm sorry for pushing this, but you've really wound me up on this one. Dorkins (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, unwind. A little-used neologism isn't necessary in the lead anyway; it can be mentioned somewhere in the article, perhaps in conjunction with a reference to the work you've cited, or if the usage appears to be emergent, it could go with the discussion of efforts to counter the discrimination we're discussing in the article. At any rate, the definition seems to be "fear of or hatred of atheists", not "discrimination against atheists". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It can't be mentioned unless we have reliable sources proving it's a notable term and not something used by a coupe of people and being pushed by a single editor here. Including it as a genuine term would be giving undue weight to some fringe people making up their own words. DreamGuy (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I'll calm down. Ironically, I was the one who added the 'Calm talk' tag to this page in the first place... Dorkins (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "If that's not enough, nothing will be." I guess that sums it up right there... sometimes things you want to add to Wikipedia simply do not meet our criteria for inclusion. That would seem to be the case here, based upon the lack of reliable sources in general and any sources establishing notability of the term. I do hope you find some other reason to edit Wikipedia other than just trying to get that term in here. DreamGuy (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Initial cutting of the worst of the OR
OK... Following WP:BOLD I have done some initial pruning, and have cut those paragraphs and sections that I think were clearly and completely violating WP:NOR. The fact that I did not remove something does not mean there are no OR issues, only that I was not completely and clearly sure of the extent of the OR. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
Discrimination against atheists is a negative categorical bias against atheists. Really? Bias isn't itself discrimination; one can be biased and yet refuse to be discriminatory. n nations where freedom of belief is biased towards established religions, the issue becomes persecution of atheists. What does this sentence mean ("the issue becomes")? The Out Campaign, Brights movement, and Humanist Association of Canada are efforts to counter the feelings of discrimination and raise a positive public awareness about atheism and naturalism. The association is an effort? "Feelings of discrimination" are what is being countered (as opposed to discrimination itself)?

I bet we can do a lot better in this opening paragraph. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Background
I encountered this article in the aftermath of some cleanup at the old historical persecution by Christians article. The core of the material on the Rob Sherman controversy was included there, and certainly misplaced. I like to keep all the acceptable content when cleaning up articles, so I moved the material to Separation of church and state in the United States, but there I only got a unnecessary and ugly debate about it. So I finally moved the material here, although I was not quite satisfied with this.

Then I noticed that part about the fee for leaving the church in Germany. I managed to find some more sources, and I think that I could easily find some more. But apparently the editor who removed the material once also follows the strategy of revert first, discuss later. With my previous experiences on this I am wondering: Should I actually wait until 3rr is broken to report this as edit warring? Merry Christmas!

Current Issue
Well, let's take a closer look at the issue. This is supposed to be about reliable sources, but is it, really? I mean, it would be rather weird to demand sources for the fact that Germany has a church tax, or the fact that a fee is required when formally leaving the church to avoid paying that tax. All you'd have to do to verify that is to call you local town hall. But you'd have to wait I few days, because, as I already mentioned, today is Christmas. But probably you might still reach someone who deals with church tax issues there if you call before midday, so if this is the issue, you'd better get to it. But obviously the problem of reliable sources can only be meant to apply to the question whether this would constitute discrimination of atheists or not. Ok, then consider this: Isn't it possible that, although the majority of people in Germany haven't heard of this problem, and many would probably say that it is not discrimination, a significant minority of atheists in Germany considers this to be discriminating? Now, since we are all familiar with WP:NPOV, if this is a significant minority viewpoint, than we would violate the policy of a Neutral point of view if we wouldn't mention it. Since I can name that German atheist group as an adherent of of this view, I don't think we would need to discuss whether this is indeed a significant minority view.
 * comment: The issue isn't whether Germany has a Church Tax, but whether that tax constitutes discrimination against atheists. In order to say that the tax constitutes discrimination against atheists you need to cite a reliable source that states the tax constitutes discrimination against atheists. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to split the article
So we need to include the atheist view somewhere, but where? The notion that an article like this would constitute original synthesis deserves some attention. I would even say that this articles like this are POVforks. We need to discuss the situation of atheists in the United States in the article Freedom of religion in the United States, the situation of atheists in Germany in the article Freedom of religion in Germany, etc. Actually I would go so far to suggest to deal with most "Persecution of" / " Discrimination of" articles this way and to abandon the idea of a 'religious persecution' template.

However, in that case we would get a different kind of problem. Obviously this application of wp:NPOV would force Christians an Atheists to discuss their issues at Freedom of religion in the United States, Hindus, Muslims and Christian to discuss their issues at Freedom of religion in India, etc. And obviously in these discussion someone would point to the another aspect of wp:NPOV that is contrary to what I've just written: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. (...) Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia."

I think that on this issue the policy of NPOV would tend more to keeping this article than to splitting it up. If this is not clear to some editors, I can explain this in more detail. But I personally would be in favour of splitting, and I think that this is a problem that we need to discuss. Zara1709 (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * comment: I agree... as far as NPOV is concerned it is better to discuss all the various allegations and claims about discrimination against atheists in one artcle.  But, as my comment above indicates, the major problems with this article do not center on NPOV, but rather WP:NOR and WP:V.  We need sources that tie each of the items discussed in the article to the concept of discrimination against atheists... for each item you need a source that says: " discriminates against atheists." Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Ok,I found some sources. We've got a decision by Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, so this topic should surely be relevant. But balancing this is going to be rather difficult. The highest German court says that it is not discrimination, but the atheist group still says it is. Now, the atheist's view is significant, so it has to be mentioned; but of course it must not be given undue weight. More than one or two sentences on their viewpoint would be difficult to justify. But before we would get into the details of a discussion on this, first we should clarify whether it would be better to move that section to Freedom of religion in Germany or not. If there aren't any comments, I'll simply move it a few days.Zara1709 (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We can discuss the issue in both articles. In the Freedom of religion in Germany article the views of an atheist group would indeed be a minority viewpoint, and thus would only rate a passing mention, linking to this article.  In this article, entire issue is of direct relevance to the topic and would thus need a more in-depth discussion, with the view point of the atheist group more fully explained.  This assumes that you can cite sources that state that group X has viewpoint Y. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Summary
This is the dispute as I understand it.

The deleting editors claim "you need secondary sources to claim that something is discrimination."

The response was, "WP:OR allows for primary sources to be used if the material is trivially verifiable by an educated reasonable person. These examples are trivial examples of discrimination."

The deleting editors responded with, "that is not how the policy is interpretted."

This was countered with Talk:Discrimination_against_atheists which showed that the consistent application of policy allows for discrimination to be listed sourced by a primary source, which does not include any intepretation of discrimination.

The deleting editors responded with, "there are many bad articles."

The reason that is not an acceptable response is that the original question was whose interpretation of policy is correct which can only be answered by this side's interpretation of policy is correct. In otherwords, whoever shows that the community favors their interpretation will be more faithfully abiding by policy. The deleting editors are asking for an unprecedented level of citation, more so than is present than in any article. I am AzureFury, and hopefully by signing this I'll show that I never tried to evade the block. 67.183.198.99 (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You might have a point if the debate was limited to people who have only edited this page. But several people (including me) entered this discussion recently... due to a querry about this page at the WP:NOR/Noticeboard and the recent RfC.  We are people who are regularly involved in writing the NOR policy, and frequently answer querries on how to interpret it.  So I think it is fair to say that we know the policy and know how to interpret it. Blueboar (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Admitting you are evading the block doesn't mean you are not evading the block. Your IP is now also blocked. You've made it clear you don't intend to abide by policy. 07:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)dougweller (talk)