
How Should Atheism Be Taught? - brian-armstrong
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/how-should-atheism-be-taught/551885/?single_page=true
======
qubex
Here in Italy, supposedly a Catholic stronghold, I have absolutely no problem
and no repercussions whatsoever declaring myself an atheist. I could easily
run for public office and not be penalised on account of that (not that I
would expect to win). Quite honestly nobody gives a shit.

And yet, in my few, brief visits to the US, I've learnt to avoid the topic or
outright lie. I've noticed, according to an informal and unscientific survey,
that I can declare myself to pretty much any religion (including
Zoroastrianism, excepting Satanism) and get nodding approvals or at the very
least tolerance. If I let slip that I'm an atheist on the other hand and I'm
usually in for it.

------
lev99
> Appignani contends that atheists are one of the few minority groups in the
> country to still be widely ostracized by society.

What is a "minority group"? Drug Dealers are a minority group that are
ostracized.

Yes we should be very open to different beliefs and different cultures. Yes we
should embrace diversity. Some politically correct terms hold almost no
meaning and their ambiguity can be exploited.

~~~
smt88
Atheists, unlike drug dealers, are a constitutionally-protected minority
group. That's what most people mean when they use "minority" as shorthand: a
minority group defined by a protected class.

~~~
lev99
Is there a list of protected classes? Seems ambiguous to me.

~~~
smt88
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll answer as though you're
sincere.

Yes. Those classes are literally in the Constitution of the United States.
They are: race, religion, and sex. These are the basic federal protections
that apply to all states.

There are statutory federal protections for people with disabilities
(Americans with Disabilities Act being the most important), as well as to
prevent discrimination based on age in some contexts.

Some states have chosen to add additional protections, e.g. sexual orientation
and sexual identity.

Regardless of where the protections come from, they are spelled out in black
and white in documents available for anyone to read for free.

~~~
tptacek
The protected classes you're referring to are not in fact in the Constitution;
you're thinking of the Civil Rights Act, which is a federal law, but not a
Constitutional amendment.

------
drKarl
"tells a compelling story about his conversion to atheism"

Conversion to atheism? That sentence doesn't make any sense, atheism is not a
religion. It would be more correct "deconversion from religion"

~~~
dragonwriter
> Conversion to atheism? That sentence doesn't make any sense,

Yes, it does.

> atheism is not a religion.

That doesn't matter, as it's clearly a belief, and the relevant sense of
“conversion” is (from Google Search’s integrated dictionary) “the fact of
changing one's religion or beliefs or the action of persuading someone else to
change theirs”.

~~~
drKarl
> as it's clearly a belief

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.

Saying that atheism is a belief would be like saying that bald is a hair
color.

Also, I think that the title is loaded to convey that atheism is like another
religion, which has to be taught.

The idea of "teaching atheism" is silly. Just teach to reason and think for
themselves, and form their own opinion based on facts rather than blindly
accepting what someone told them to belief, let everyone think freely and
provide the mental tools to do so instead of indoctrinating children.

Education is the worse enemy of religion. Religion preys on the ignorant.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.

Even granting that, changing to atheism is a change of belief and thus
comfortably fits within the definition of conversion.

