From: www.dailykos.com, Sun Aug 28, 2011 at 07:44 AM PDT

Quoting from the article quoted on Daily Kos:

"Brothers and Sisters, I have been seriously considering forming a (Christian) grassroots type of organization to be named "The Christian National Registry of Atheists" or something similar. I mean, think about it. There are already National Registrys for convicted sex offenders, ex-convicts, terrorist cells, hate groups like the KKK, skinheads, radical Islamists, etc.

This type of "National Registry" would merely be for information purposes. To inform the public of KNOWN (i.e., self-admitted) atheists." [END QUOTE]



I agree with the rest of the article that this is, at this moment, merely a trial balloon, but it is a potentially serious trial balloon...and unfortunately--as we all know--many of these actually wind up flying high.

Check out the article (and the many comments). This may be a "nothing" right now, but in our current social/political climate, the potential is here for something that could, gradually and eventually, become virulent.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/28/1011322/-Christian-fanatics-want-national-registry-of-atheists-%7C-Update:-Even-Crazier-Stuff?via=siderec



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2011 02:18PM by tevai.

The atheists could just start a counter registry of people who believe in invisible beings and practice magical thinking.

A link to the article would help; DailyKos is a blog, and articles (especially community-submitted ones, which run down the right-hand side of the page) tend to scroll away rather quickly. Do you have a link to the article?

Sorry. Link is now included.

There's a National Registry for "terrorist cells, hate groups like the KKK, skinheads, radical Islamists, etc."

Really??? I'm sure that all the terrorists are signing up for that! Let me go on my computer and see if there are any terrorist cells living close to me like I can look for registered sex offenders.

Registries are for protection from something. I'm not an atheist, but why would I need protection from them? Are gangs of atheists going around beating-up, killing people? Spray painting or burning down churches?

What an idiot. It's people like him that give theists a bad image.

There are thousands of gods which have been invented by the imagination of man

the only difference between a christian[/muslim/jew] and an atheist is that the atheist believes in one less god

he is an admitted athiest.

Rove is a mormon.

The insane christer is playing the game known as "Trolling for assassins".
He himself would not kill Atheists but an unstable follower would.

Does the name Jared Loughner ring a bell ?

Would Phelps rather people believe in a god other than the one he worships? How are people who believe in no god worse than ones who in his opinion believe in the wrong god? I am sure he would be singing a different tune if someone was calling for a national registry of Christians. That would be considered a hate crime and religious persecution.

Atheists believe in the power of natural law and the ability of reason and logic to uncover those laws. Why is knowledge gained through the scientific process inferior to revelation?

Science has given us the miracles of the modern world we live in. Religion gave us the dark ages. I know which belief system I prefer.

When the Dominionists take over the United States of America and make it a theocracy (The Christian U.S.A.?) then they will be more easily able to round up all the atheists and have them shot.

See this previous post:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,280266,280266#msg-280266

There is no word available to express the level of contempt I have for this person.

http://pastorstahl.blogspot.com/ pastors blog. original place where it was posted.

Christian, my arse!

He is a fucking arsehole. Report his blog.

Isn't this a Poe?

Christian fanatics want all sorts of silly things they're never going to get. Why even waste thought on it?

Pista Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Christian fanatics want all sorts of silly things
> they're never going to get. Why even waste
> thought on it?

Because people get murdered, their property gets vandalized, their jobs and/or promotions vanish, their children get ostracized...

The "national" (as the person who wrote the original article proposing this goes to some pains to point out) doesn't mean that the federal government would be responsible for doing this, but that private citizens would. It would be a "private citizens registry" of people who had "admitted" being atheists (though my guess would be that it would quickly stretch to include those who someone thought MIGHT be an atheist). My guess would be a list on the Internet, with a search engine.

Don't like your child's teacher? Well here is what can happen: When I was in seventh grade, my Mom HATED my seventh grade English teacher, who was in charge of the gifted children's program I was in, because Mrs. Narrol was (by descent, I don't think she was the slightest bit observant) Jewish...therefore (according to the WASP sensibilities of that time) she was obviously a Communist who was trying to indoctrinate her students into Communism and who wanted to destroy this country.

All of which was, of course, total bullshit. But I have LIVED this, and I take it very, VERY seriously, because I have seen, in my own intimate family life, what can happen when people start getting "labeled" and those labels lead to them being "listed." Mrs. Narrol, despite her pedagogical limitations, was in NO WAY a "Communist," nor was she in any way trying to indoctrinate any of us into Communism or into betraying the USA. She was, however, the daughter of Jewish parents, and in that period of American history, that was enough for her to be labeled "Communist."

Think of the abortion providers (both individual medical practitioners and also the facilities they practice in). It starts with a list, and then that list allows and encourages the people on the fringe (like the gunman who shot Gabby Giffords and all those other people) to "go after" those who have offended their own personal sensibilities in some way.

If such a list is begun, it could involve anyone, in any community anywhere, and it could put that person, and their family, and their companion animals, and their property, and their employment into great jeopardy of all kinds.

Don't underestimate the gravity of this.

The murder of most of the Dutch Jews began with a seemingly unobjectionable new requirement, once the Nazis took over, that everyone who was a Dutch citizen or resident had to get a new ID card. On the forms that had to be filled out, was one simple, throwaway question--not anything for anyone to be concerned about, certainly--that had the effect of determining whether any of that person's grandparents were or had been Jewish. In the context of the total form, it was truly a "nothing" question, but it was--in fact--the entire point of issuing new ID cards to every person who was Dutch or who lived in the Netherlands.

The Holocaust in the Netherlands began at the very moment those forms were filled out and those new ID cards were issued. It took two or three years for the effects to become obvious, but the effects were decisive: all those who were identified as "Jews" under Nazi law were "sent East" (unless they had been able to escape before the end). Most of them never returned.

Lists can be EXTREMELY important. Never, ever underestimate the power and potential of a list if it is compiled for reasons which are, or will be, destructive to those listed.

Never forget what happened during the McCarthy years right here in the United States.

And be aware that we are already in another of these cycles right now, and that this "list of atheists" can affect all of us, whether we are or are not atheists, because the people doing the listing don't care. They just want to punish or eliminate whoever offends, or might offend, their personal sensibilities.

And atheists definitely offend the sensibilities of a very large group of Americans who are working very hard right now to attain the goals THEY think are "good" and "proper" and "approved by God."

Think of it as "Christian jihad." For many people in these fringe groups (whose influence is growing daily among the general population, and throughout a good section of the media), "Christian jihad" is a fairly good description of what they would at least like to attain if they could.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2011 08:59PM by tevai.

When branches of a religion become radicalized and are unchecked, they can grow steadily. Radicalized branches are dangerous, especially when they gain power.

If (when) the mainstream religion does not actively control it's offshoots (and I'm not sure they can), it becomes a problem for us all.

But it goes against our values to do much to limit someone's participation in a religion- usually until it is too late. By being accepting of differences, we end up putting ourselves in danger.

I don't know how this issue could be resolved to hit a happy medium. It seems like the more radical or fundamental the religion, the faster the birthrate. I don't like the idea of the majority religion being able to snuff out people who are not like them yet I think they are somehow partly responsible for creating the dogma for radicals to thrive.

I don't have many ideas about how this problem in the world could be solved.

Well, we have the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They aren't perfect, but they keep the nutcases reined in to a certain degree. The crazies have a right to think this is a good idea, but I doubt it will ever happen because people have rights in this country.That goes for both sides.There are atheists who would like to destroy religion too, I'm sure. Fanatics are scary regardless of their beliefs. Fortunately , the fanatics are not the majority.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2011 09:35PM by bona dea.

Gays and lesbians know full well that Christian "fanatics" have come very close to succeeding in the elimination of many rights via the legislative process. It is only through the hard work of many dedicated and frightened people that they did not get what they want. So, here are some quotes about freedom for you to ponder.

Some famous quotes to consider:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

hen they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.--Martin Niemöller


“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”--Wendell Phillips(?)

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

What would be the point of a registry of atheist? Besides, it would unconstitutional.
I did get a good laugh at a registry of terrorist cells!

It is definitely unconstitutional and very unlikely to happen.BTW, this is the Westboro Baptists. According to Wiki, they have less than 100 members.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2011 09:47PM by bona dea.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is definitely unconstitutional and very
> unlikely to happen.

I don't understand. There's nothing unconstitutional about making a list of people, whether it's the members of the local PTA, or those who promote good prenatal nutrition, or animal lovers of various kinds, or fans of an athletic team.

I--or anyone--could start a listing of anyone I wanted to (whether it was on the Net or not), and this is MY consitutional right. I can invite anyone to contribute names to my list, say: people who like vintage cars.

What this man is proposing is, constitutionally, no different at all. That's what's so serious about it. He has the full backing of the Constitution and the law to do this if he wants to.

And since, as he proposes the list, it would be "self-admitted" atheists, then anyone who has ever said they were an atheist would have no defense against being put on his list.

But once ON that list, they become, individually, walking targets (and so do their families)--because of the INTENT of the list: to identify and isolate those who have self-identified themselves as atheists.

But there is certainly and absolutely no Constitutional prohibition against listing people who have identified themselves as anything: members of a political party, adherents of a specific religion, people who live in a certain area, people who like certain kinds of films or music.

Obviously, I am against this list that this man is proposing, but I cannot see any Constitutional prohibition against it at all.

Any such prohibition would, by itself, be a violation of our Constitution, because it would be restricting free speech. HIS free speech, which is fully Constitutionally protected.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2011 09:52PM by tevai.

The reason I am unconcerned is that the list is useless unless it is used to persecute -- and the persecution is illegal. If radical Christians want to identify self-identified atheists, we are pretty easy to find without being on any specific list. If some fringe group wants to commit a crime against me because of my beliefs (or lack thereof) I am already vulnerable and protected by the law.

Pista Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The reason I am unconcerned is that the list is
> useless unless it is used to persecute -- and the
> persecution is illegal.

People get "persecuted" all the time, and only in some instances is it illegal.

Shunning is persecution. Discrimination (like against members of a particular gender, ethnic group, or sexual orientation) is persecution. Bullying is persecution.

And there is TONS of "persecution" that is never, ever reported, or followed up on, or dealt with in any way because it's "garden variety" vandalism and similar acts.

And if three people are apply for a job or a promotion, and one of them is someone who has some trait or identification that the person hiring or promoting doesn't agree with, it's very unlikely that--even if the person with the unliked quality IS "persecuted"--that it will ever be really, truly known, or addressed, or dealt with.

"Persecution" happens all the time, and we have dozens of words in English to describe it in its many different forms.

Only SOME of these are illegal.

And even if they're illegal, only SOME get acknowledged in any way at all.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2011 10:03PM by tevai.

Agreed. Such a list is not unconstitutional if kept by a private organization. The problem will come when such a list is accessed by a fundamentalist bible-thumping nut job who thinks he is on a mission from God to eliminate all of the evil atheists who are preventing the establishment of God's kingdom on Earth. Think Scott Roeder or James Kopp, or Eric Rudolph.

tevai Wrote:

>
> I don't understand. There's nothing
> unconstitutional about making a list of people,
> whether it's the members of the local PTA, or
> those who promote good prenatal nutrition, or
> animal lovers of various kinds, or fans of an
> athletic team.
>
> I--or anyone--could start a listing of anyone I
> wanted to (whether it was on the Net or not), and
> this is MY consitutional right. I can invite
> anyone to contribute names to my list, say: people
> who like vintage cars.
>
> What this man is proposing is, constitutionally,
> no different at all. That's what's so serious
> about it. He has the full backing of the
> Constitution and the law to do this if he wants
> to.
>
> And since, as he proposes the list, it would be
> "self-admitted" atheists, then anyone who has ever
> said they were an atheist would have no defense
> against being put on his list.
>
> But once ON that list, they become, individually,
> walking targets (and so do their
> families)--because of the INTENT of the list: to
> identify and isolate those who have
> self-identified themselves as atheists.
>
> But there is certainly and absolutely no
> Constitutional prohibition against listing people
> who have identified themselves as anything:
> members of a political party, adherents of a
> specific religion, people who live in a certain
> area, people who like certain kinds of films or
> music.
>
> Obviously, I am against this list that this man is
> proposing, but I cannot see any Constitutional
> prohibition against it at all.
>
> Any such prohibition would, by itself, be a
> violation of our Constitution, because it would be
> restricting free speech. HIS free speech, which
> is fully Constitutionally protected.

Excellent points. Painting people with broad brushes in an attempt to vilify is a very destructively, effective way to silence dissent. Definitely constitutional but very unethical in my opinion. I have watched this happen to Mormons living in the "mission field", exmormons, Jewish friends, other friends that are wrongfully labeled Antisemites, Catholics by Baptists, etc. We have been very fortunate in the U.S. over the last few decades as bigotry has declined (but hardly disappeared). Making such lists and smearing people is a VERY dangerous and destructive undertaking.

I also feel that court records are made much too accessible in many cases. There are types of legal issues that should be tracked by the public. However, there are also many instances where the issues are not relevant to anyone other than the parties involved. We live in a culture of blame, punishment, and vengeance with changes in behavior and improvement generally not acknowledged and often stifled. Having the ill-informed and ill-intentioned building additional roadblocks causes problems not only for the victims but for society at large.

Yeah, they can make a list, but it is illegal to use it to persecute or discriminate .Besides, those who have publically espouse atheism are probably not going to care or they would have kept their opinions to themselves.If they are discriminated against they can sue and they will probably win and get a big settlement.There is prejudice out there and if you take a minority and unpopular view, you will make some enemies. That is a problem that lots of people besides atheists have.I am a non Mormon and a liberal in Utah. Tell me about it.If your rights are violated, stand up for yourself, but don't expect everyone to agree with you. You can't make people like you or make them be your friend..

and I would be proud to be on the list and in good company. I think, and I know he could never admit it publicly, that the top of the list would be Barack Obama.

Do you have any proof of that or is that just what you would like to believe?

I do not have proof. I only think that because he seems to be a rational guy that always mentions the non believers too when he is speaking about religious groups.

I'm a rational person who thinks non believers have rights too and I am NOT an atheist. Neither are a lot of other rational people. Just a thought. All theists are not crazed, intolerant fanatics who reject science and believe in creationism. Talk about stereotypes.

Although I do think the people who want to make this list are batsh!t crazy.

I do think it is sad that people running for public office must proclaim faith, and basicly prioritize prayer over critical thought, when they are trying to position themselves to a position that should require clear critical thought.

The point is that you can think clearly and believe. They are not mutually exclusive. I think it is too bad that there is prejudice against atheists, but I do find it derogatory to theists to say that Obama must be an atheists because he is smart.That certainly implies that believers are not so smart. I don't know how else to take it. I agree about the Westboros, but in the whole world, there are around 70 of them. Come on, they are hardly typical believers and they are batshit crazy. I agree on that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2011 10:29PM by bona dea.

and they make very rational points.

The idea of this list, however, makes a handful of the crazy ones look even loonier. Imagine how it would sound if they ask for lists of people belonging to other faiths.

Lists of Jews? List of muslims? Lists of members of the Alcoholics Anonymous faith?

This is really a bad idea. It is being put into the public arena as a suggestion, and the most outspoken criticism for this idea should come from the religious community. It only follows reason that lists of persons from each of the various faiths should be made public, and that could be a bad can of worms to open.

I'm against the list too, but I think it is would be unconstitutional if it was used against atheists. Of course, the courts get to decide that. Anyone can make a list of all the atheists they know, but the only ones they know are those who have said so publically. I doubt those people would care.Do you really think people like Dawkins would object? They love the term. If they did, they wouldn't use the term. If a list was made and that list hurt someone, they could sue and would win if they could prove damages. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to publically proclaim that you are an atheist, a Mormon, a Tea party member or whatever, you have to take what goes along with it.It is too bad their is prejudice, but that is the way it is. Again. this is the 70 + member Westboro Baptists. They don't have much support from anyone so I think this is much ado about nothing.The bottom line is that freedom of religion includes the right not to believe, so you are protected. However, the WBB's right to their beliefs and their right to say whatever stupid thing they want within the law is also protected.I am appalled by their bigotry, but they have a right to be bigots.

Maybe they could pray to their JESUS, and he would provide them with an accouate copy.....I wont hold my breath...Praying to the atheist God and Jesus God always gets the exact same response...NOTHING>>>>>>>>>>>>

and of course if something is amiss in the neighborhood, it must be the atheists???

Your regular every day Utah exmormon need only imagine what would happen if a list of exmormons was created by FAIR and circulated among all the Mormons including business owners. Yes, we all know that discrimination is illegal based on "religious" beliefs, but those of us that live in Utah have seen that those laws are often ignored.