Half of Americans don't want atheist in-laws

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/24/all-in-the-family-not-for-atheists/?hpt=hp_t4

This is interesting news. I know that MS was definitely an atheist (he didn't believe in god/religion) are any of you other people here like that? I didn't know they would be shunned by that many people within our country.

Even though I don't identify with a religion, I believe that God exists. I'm not sure what kind of religion I should get into, but I don't identify as an atheist.

 

I'm an atheist and have gotten a few snarls from the black community, but it hasn't meant anything in terms of career options because black people don't really own anything.

I did piss off a white employer who once wished me a Good Friday and I had to ask her what she was talking about.

 

What's beautiful about your header is what is truly beautiful about AMERICA - that one can choose their in-laws, and the in-laws can choose to not believe in Religion.

We are so lucky to live here.

 

But it can be a lessened choice if the rest of the society applies such irrational social sanctions to you as to make exercise of your own choice almost untenable. I'm an atheist, but I generally don't talk about it with believers, especially if they have an unreflective or anti-analytical understanding of their faith. That's just asking for problems.

 

Do you feel that you should subscribe to a religion because you believe in the existence of God?

 

IDK that FAITH is something you want to analyze. You might just talk yourself out of it. Faith doesn't make sense to non-believers anyhow, so why ascribe to the non-believer's application.

I get what you're saying about a lessened choice but it is no way comparative to the lack of (religious/non-religious) freedom elsewhere in the world, which was my point. I find it socially appealing that there are atheists, it makes me love my Faith even more. I don't say that as a slight, but as a genuine appreciation for my God. I always respect that God gave us/gives us choice.

 

People should agree to disagree and not force what they believe upon another.

 

I totally agree. I recognize that this country is nominally free, but that informal or market sanctions against atheism exist that serve to restrict freedom by other means. It's sort of like our version of dictatorship: Dictatorship of the marketplace - we don't have the government saying you can't, the market mechanism ensures that your message doesn't get out, or is so marginalized that if it does get out, you won't get any attention or traction.

 

the question should be why they wouldnt want atheist as an inlaw. just because they are religous doesnt mean they arent analytical.

 

I don't get the anti-atheist thing at all. If a person behaves in a moral fashion, why should it matter? But I guess for many (not all) believers, religion=morals, so you cannot have one without the other.

 

Nope.

 

I don't think I've come across this discrimination but the issue has never really come up. The idea is strange to me because even though I don't believe in a god (I don't claim to know that there isn't one, I'm an agnostic atheist) I don't really think of myself as an "atheist", it has nothing to do with my identity.