Best country for atheists

[arcticpenguin]

Which is the best country in the world for atheists? This is prompted by another thread, in which a U.S. resident said, "I'm ready to move to Canada", and someone else responded that New Zealand is better.

Which country has the least oppression of non-theists, in principle and in practice?

[Tony]

America, im a non-theist and I have never been oppressed. In fact, im more oppressed as a gun owner and indo smoker than I am oppressed as a non-theist.

[jimlintott]

I can't speak for NZ but I live in Canada. I am an 'out of the closet' atheist. Saying that I'm atheist rarely seems to raise an eyebrow. Twenty years ago it would but not lately. In fact a common response is 'me too'. Most of my friends are atheist or agnostic. My children are in public school and I find the schools to be very secular. Occasionally someone brings up religion in schools and they seem to get shot down very quickly.

With the recent controversy over same sex marriages the Catholic church publicly criticised the PM and many other politicians about it. The basic public response was 'mind your own business, religion has no place in government'.

So I would say that Canada is a great place for atheists. We just don't seem to care that much about what people do or believe as long as nobody gets hurt.

I also live in what may be the most religous province.

[Lord Emsworth]

Which country has the least oppression of non-theists, in principle and in practice?

In Germany, none

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony
America, im a non-theist and I have never been oppressed. In fact, im more oppressed as a gun owner and indo smoker than I am oppressed as a non-theist.

It depends on how you define "opressed" and "best country for atheists". I have never felt opressed by the Government for being an atheist, not once. I DO feel that the government sometimes panders to the religious right at my expense, but I feel that has more to do with the nature of politics (and that would be the same everywhere) than any deficiency in America's system of government.

Societally, however, is a different story. When people find out that I am an atheist I often get a reaction on par with what I would get if I claimed that I like to eat an occasional baby now and then. For example, two women I was taking a college class with found out I was an atheist (and it was almost by accident, I am far from being a loud, militant atheist) and from that point forward refused to even use the same elevator I was in. These were not a pair of fundamentalist loonies either, just a pair of normal "soccer mom" types. So from a societal standpoint, I do feel opressed at times. That form of opression, I think, might be very differnt in a less religious country.

[Segnosaur]

It depends on what you think is 'important' as an atheist.

As Jim said, most Canadian people are very accepting of people who are athiests, and there seems to be no interest in 'forcing' religion into the government.

But, there are a few things to watch out for:
- Our constitution mentions the supremacy of g*d (although it has no impact on the rest of the document)
- Many provinces (Ontario for one) still have publicly funded religious school systems
- We do have a sort of reverse-discrimination thing going (but then that probably happens everywhere); special rules are given to various minorities, including religious ones
- Someone coming here from the US may get more 'freedom to be an athiest', but they will loose out on many other freedoms (freedom of speech, for example.) And remember, Randi moved from Canada to the US because of what he thought were unfair activities by Canadian police

[jimlintott]

But, there are a few things to watch out for:
- Our constitution mentions the supremacy of g*d (although it has no impact on the rest of the document)
- Many provinces (Ontario for one) still have publicly funded religious school systems
- We do have a sort of reverse-discrimination thing going (but then that probably happens everywhere); special rules are given to various minorities, including religious ones
- Someone coming here from the US may get more 'freedom to be an athiest', but they will loose out on many other freedoms (freedom of speech, for example.) And remember, Randi moved from Canada to the US because of what he thought were unfair activities by Canadian police

Most of this is true, however freedom of expression is guaranteed in our charter (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html#garantie)

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Societally, however, is a different story. When people find out that I am an atheist I often get a reaction on par with what I would get if I claimed that I like to eat an occasional baby now and then. For example, two women I was taking a college class with found out I was an atheist (and it was almost by accident, I am far from being a loud, militant atheist) and from that point forward refused to even use the same elevator I was in. These were not a pair of fundamentalist loonies either, just a pair of normal "soccer mom" types. So from a societal standpoint, I do feel opressed at times. That form of opression, I think, might be very differnt in a less religious country.


And did you feel oppressed by the way those women acted?

[Kodiak]

The U.S. has a Constitution that protects my agnosticism/atheism.

I've never felt oppressed or castigated.

[Furious]

America doesn't truly oppress athiests. There are religious shenanigans like Rob Moore's TCs and there is the whole money/pledge thing, but short of some weird looks and some misguided parental "you'll grow out of it" type attitudes which are arguably reciprocated back on the various religious communities by athiests as well, America is a pretty good place for athiests.

I don't think it has the most athiests and is not the popular view, but I don't think that is what you are talking about.

In most western democratic nations there is virtually nill overt opression of any type of people. There is still negative stereotyping and instances of tolerated bigotry of course, but nothing really institutionalized.

In my opinion, it akin to saying which country has the best food. The differences are so minute and subjective the question ends up being meaningless.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony



And did you feel oppressed by the way those women acted?

In a sense. I feel that people like that are trying to pressure me into being something that I am not. It is not a form of opression that anyone except myself can do anything about (nor would I ever expect them to try). I deal with it by mentally giving such people the finger and moving on with my life, but I can definately understand other people in the same situation dealing with it by trying to remove themselves to some other place where they will be more tolerated. I have conseidered it myself a time or two, never seriously, but enough that I can understand the thought.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by jimlintott


Most of this is true, however freedom of expression is guaranteed in our charter (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html#garantie)



Although 'freedom of expression' is technically guaranteed, there have been several precidents which make me worry:

- Publication bans, implemented by judges on certain court cases. Although it may be designed to help guarantee fair trials, I feel it is against freedom of speech. (More importantly, it is also a really dumb idea, as any rumours are likely to be just as damaging as the truth, and it allows judges to cover their ineptness)
- Censorship laws that are more oppressive than the US. The best example of that is the case of the Little Sisters (gay and lesbian) book store, where the government was seizing shipments (even though many of the items were actually available in public libraries). Then of course there are all of the provincial film boards censoring movies.
- The government has the right to open certain mail, for example, letters sent to some lawyers

The problems of freedom of speech are only one example of how Canada has fewer freedoms than the US. To that, I could add gun rights (not important to everyone, but some may think its needed) and economic freedom (our tax rate is much higher than in the US)

[Mr Manifesto]

We have one high-profile religious nut (that I'm aware of, but feel free to correct me), Rev Fred Nile. He's the - you should pardon the pun - butt of the gay community. They have a float of him every year at the Mardi Gras.

People like Fred are called 'wowsers'. There is a solid Aussie tradition of taking the p!ss out of them.

Unfotuantely, as Australia becomes more Americanised by the right-wing Liberal government, religion gets more of a focus. Tony "Mad Monk" Abbot, for example, has given his buddies in the religious a leg-up in controling the Job Network, which the unemployed use to look for work. In some regions, you can't even sign up to a Job Network member that has no religious affiliation.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
We have one high-profile religious nut (that I'm aware of, but feel free to correct me), Rev Fred Nile. He's the - you should pardon the pun - butt of the gay community. They have a float of him every year at the Mardi Gras.

People like Fred are called 'wowsers'. There is a solid Aussie tradition of taking the p!ss out of them.

Unfotuantely, as Australia becomes more Americanised by the right-wing Liberal government, religion gets more of a focus. Tony "Mad Monk" Abbot, for example, has given his buddies in the religious a leg-up in controling the Job Network, which the unemployed use to look for work. In some regions, you can't even sign up to a Job Network member that has no religious affiliation.

What the heck do you mean by "Americanised"?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Unfotuantely, as Australia becomes more Americanised by the right-wing Liberal government, religion gets more of a focus. Tony "Mad Monk" Abbot, for example, has given his buddies in the religious a leg-up in controling the Job Network, which the unemployed use to look for work. In some regions, you can't even sign up to a Job Network member that has no religious affiliation.

Wow, the Southern Hemisphere really is different. Your Summer is our Winter and your Liberals are Right wing. :D

[mummymonkey]

Kodiak
The U.S. has a Constitution that protects my agnosticism/atheism.

I've never felt oppressed or castigated.
Just you wait till the fair and balanced war on secularism gets going.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Grammatron

What the heck do you mean by "Americanised"?
If he had already succumbed, he would say Americanized.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


What the heck do you mean by "Americanised"?

Sorry, we still have spelling in Australia. We're a bit behind Amerika in that respect.

Wow, the Southern Hemisphere really is different. Your Summer is our Winter and your Liberals are Right wing

I don't know if you think I got it mixed up or not, but our Liberals are in fact the right-wing party in Australia. I'm buggered if I know how they got their name. Maybe their web page (http://www.liberal.org.au/) can provide some clues.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I don't know if you think I got it mixed up or not, but our Liberals are in fact the right-wing party in Australia. I'm buggered if I know how they got their name. Maybe their web page (http://www.liberal.org.au/) can provide some clues.

Nope, I didn't think you got it mixed up at all. It just struck me as kind of funny, that's all.

[jimlintott]

Although 'freedom of expression' is technically guaranteed, there have been several precidents which make me worry:

- Publication bans, implemented by judges on certain court cases. Although it may be designed to help guarantee fair trials, I feel it is against freedom of speech. (More importantly, it is also a really dumb idea, as any rumours are likely to be just as damaging as the truth, and it allows judges to cover their ineptness)
- Censorship laws that are more oppressive than the US. The best example of that is the case of the Little Sisters (gay and lesbian) book store, where the government was seizing shipments (even though many of the items were actually available in public libraries). Then of course there are all of the provincial film boards censoring movies.
- The government has the right to open certain mail, for example, letters sent to some lawyers

I personally support publication bans. While we were having the Bernardo, Homolka case the U.S. was having the OJ carnival. There is plenty of time to read about it later. If it keeps one case from being compromised its worth it.

I'm not intimately familiar with U.S. or Canadian censorship laws and I'm sure mistakes are made on both sides (Maplethorpe). I'm constantly amazed with the level of censorship on U.S. tv compared to our own.

As for law enforcement trampling on people's rights, surely you don't think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence? Do you?

As this thread is about life as an atheist, I think we may be getting off topic here.

Many have pointed out that the U.S. doesn't oppress atheists. Their right to have their own beliefs is protected by the constitution after all. However, If you as a person are aprehensive about being openly atheist in the genral public then you are being oppressed. What good are your beliefs if you are reluctant to wear them proudly. Many fundamenatlists don't seem embarrassed to let everyone else know what they think. Why should atheists feel that way?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Wow, the Southern Hemisphere really is different. Your Summer is our Winter and your Liberals are Right wing. :D

Don't forget that the word 'liberal' has taken on a completely new meaning in the states. I think the label 'liberal' could have been applied quite appropriately to the founding fathers of the US constitution, for example.

In Australia, the naming was an historical anomoly due to some shifty politicking.

The conservative party had just self-disintegrated. The new leader of the new conservative party wanted to capture some of the common ground.

Now, a true conservative will always vote conservative, a true lefty will always vote left. It is the swinging voters that matter. By calling the party the liberal party, it was hoped to capture some of that middle ground. Even if the right wing wasn't happy with the name, they would still vote for the party, and the middle would, in theory, join up with the new party too.

In a famous speech, Menzies, the new leader, referred to them as "the forgotten people". And it worked like a charm. Due to this and other reasons, the Liberal Party dominated Australian politics for over two decades.

[DanishDynamite]

Mr Manifesto: I don't know if you think I got it mixed up or not, but our Liberals are in fact the right-wing party in Australia. I'm buggered if I know how they got their name. Maybe their web page (http://www.liberal.org.au/) can provide some clues. No need to go south of the equator to experience this apparent contradiction. In Denmark, the Liberal Left (!) Party (http://www.venstre.dk/viewPage.php?id=737) is usually regarded as somewhat more to the right than the Conservative Party, which is definitely right of center. In fact, there is only one other party more to the right than the Liberal Left, namely the Danish People's Party (http://www.danskfolkeparti.dk/), whose main thrust is the reduction/elimination of immigrants.

I'm not sure of the historical reason for the Liberal Left party's name, but there is little doubt that the leader of the party (and the current Prime Minister) is a fan of Libertarianism. Before he became Prime Minister he wrote a much discussed book called "The Minimal Government".

(Edited to add - Being an atheist in Denmark has no legal, social, moral, or other taboo. No one cares, as the majority are effectively athiests)

[Tony]

Left does not equal liberal and right does not equal conservative.

[Kilted_Canuck]

Originally posted by jimlintott

I also live in what may be the most religous province.

Well, our Premier is a former United Church Minister, but he does a pretty good job of not letting any of his biases sneak through into politics, AFIK.
I haven't been to all the provinces, but I have noticed lots, and lots of JW assembly halls here in southern saskatchewan. Swift current has 5 or so that are visible from the highway alone!

All I can say though, is that I'm glad most christians here are liberal roman catholic, anglican, or united, and a very low preportion of fundies.

[corplinx]

I'm not an atheist or an agnostic, I am ex-gen-xer and am just plain apathetic about the whole deity thing. I don't believe, I don't care if there is a god, and I don't care enough to label myself over it.

Pronouncing yourself an athiest has always seemed kinda smarmy to me.

Anyway, not giving a crap about something is a good american trait. I feel quite at home.

[Tony]

Originally posted by corplinx
I'm not an atheist or an agnostic, I am ex-gen-xer and am just plain apathetic about the whole deity thing. I don't believe, I don't care if there is a god, and I don't care enough to label myself over it.

Pronouncing yourself an athiest has always seemed kinda smarmy to me.

Anyway, not giving a crap about something is a good american trait. I feel quite at home.

Well put. Ive always thought that people who label themselves as "atheist" have something to prove.

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Which is the best country in the world for atheistsThis is a tough one, but I am going to have to say Hank Williams. Except for his Gospel album.

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted corplinx
I'm not an atheist or an agnostic, I am ex-gen-xer and am just plain apathetic about the whole deity thing. I don't believe, I don't care if there is a god, and I don't care enough to label myself over it.

Pronouncing yourself an athiest has always seemed kinda smarmy to me.

Anyway, not giving a crap about something is a good american trait. I feel quite at home.

Sorry to get into semantics here, but since you don't believe in a deity (and therefore lack theism) you are a de facto atheist. You're statement is the equivalent of someone saying "I don't have sex, but I'm not an asexual".

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Jet Grind


Sorry to get into semantics here, but since you don't believe in a deity (and therefore lack theism) you are a de facto atheist. You're statement is the equivalent of someone saying "I don't have sex, but I'm not an asexual".

I knew there would be some nitpicker. Here are my 5 classes of faithless people:

the pure atheist, simply doesnt see any evidence of diety
the agnostic, a unitarian in denial
the apathetic, like me, you just don't give a crap
the a-hole, athiest and proud of it and always acting like theists are subclass of human being

Yes, by definition I am an atheist. However, I don't care to identify with the elitist acting snoots who I most often hear identify themselves as such.

[Lord Kenneth]

It's "atheist", not "athiest".

[Zep]

The reality of life in Australia is that we DO get more offended at politicians when they start dragging God into the debate as justification for doing something stupid.

Our actual propensity for "going to church" has been falling for years, making organised religion now almost completely moribund (apart from the influx of recent Middle Eastern immigrants which has increased the number of Muslims marginally). So you could say we are atheists in that sense.

However, we DO have strong "religious" convictions on the following subjects: cricket, football (all sorts), tennis, golf, drinking, barbeques, parties, beer, cars, our homes, holidays, the neighbours, the government (any one), banks & money, "Aunty" (in-joke), etc, etc, etc... That is, all the worthwhile topics.

[Reginald]

It's one of the main reasons I love living in the UK.

The constant complaints from the church here that attendances are falling. There's a cringe when Blair does something overtly religious.

I like it, the in-fighting about women vicars, gay vicars....Being non-religious is almost the accepted common sense possition.

Wonderful.

Now if only we can stop importing the stuff it will all work out for the best.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Originally posted by Reginald
It's one of the main reasons I love living in the UK.

The constant complaints from the church here that attendances are falling. There's a cringe when Blair does something overtly religious.

I like it, the in-fighting about women vicars, gay vicars....Being non-religious is almost the accepted common sense possition.

Wonderful.

Now if only we can stop importing the stuff it will all work out for the best.

You mean you'd like to export the rest of it don't you?? After all, who sent the Pilgrims to Plymouth Rock in the first place?! We did!! Then we decided that wasn't enough and sent them all our Roundheads/Puritans!!

When one wonders how the Americans bred so many fundies, one only need look to history....English history that is!

-DC

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Which is the best country in the world for atheists? This is prompted by another thread, in which a U.S. resident said, "I'm ready to move to Canada", and someone else responded that New Zealand is better.

Which country has the least oppression of non-theists, in principle and in practice?

Screw Canada and New Zealand.

Germany and Japan are two of the most atheistic modern "free" countries in the world. Japan is almost all atheist.

America is the most theistic developed country in the world except Ireland.

The only countries in the world more religious than America are third world countries, that should tell you something.

The Netharlands, Germany, Sweden, France, all the former Soviet states, all of that is far, far, far less theistic than America. I really woudl like to move to Germany but I understnad its not easy to immigrate to Europe. I'll probably do it eventually, assuming that Bush does not win. If Bush win's the next election I may go ahead and try to move now and get out of here before it all goes to hell.

the a-hole, athiest and proud of it and always acting like theists are subclass of human being

Theists ARE a subclass of human being ;)

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Don't forget that the word 'liberal' has taken on a completely new meaning in the states. I think the label 'liberal' could have been applied quite appropriately to the founding fathers of the US constitution, for example.



I have to agree wholeheartedly with this statement. I agree with AUP. There, I've said it, admitted it and will back him up 100% on this. [Now I must lie down and take a pill or something...:wink8: ]

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony
Left does not equal liberal and right does not equal conservative.

In theory you are correct, but in actual practice (at least here in the US) the terms are almost synonymous.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Tony


Well put. Ive always thought that people who label themselves as "atheist" have something to prove.

do you have something to prove by calling yourself "Tony"?

[Tony]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


do you have something to prove by calling yourself "Tony"?


Only to prove that may name is indeed, Tony.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Someone coming here from the US may get more 'freedom to be an athiest', but they will loose out on many other freedoms (freedom of speech, for example.) And remember, Randi moved from Canada to the US because of what he thought were unfair activities by Canadian police

I'm just curious why you feel freedom of speech is suppressed here more than in the USA. I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong, but it's not immediately evident to me why you feel this is the case.

Also, I find it difficult to condemn the whole country as having a repressive police state based on one antecdote by James Randi.
If I even dig up one example of police repression in the USA does that mean that I can conclude that Canada is more "free" in this regard than the USA?

[davefoc]

I have traveled in Europe a little and saw many churches that seemed to be actively attended so that it's not immediately obvious that these countries have a higher percentage of atheists than in the US but my sense of it is that they do. So I think Malachi might be right that the US and Ireland are the most religiously oriented of the developed countries.

I tried to find some quantitative data on church attendance by country but couldn't find any. Perhaps somebody could supply some information on this. I wonder about East European countries, even after enforced atheism under communism there still seems to be a fairly strong Greek Orthodox church going in some of those countries.

Interestingly, when I worked in China, I was asked if I believed in God. I have never been asked that question before. When I told them I didn't, they seemed comforted and told me that most young people in China (I was moderately young at the time) didn't either.

[davefoc]

The subject of the rise of religion in government has been the topic of conversation a few times with my raquetball/beer drinking buddies who are pretty much all liberals. I am the token right wing wacko in the group.

They are much more concerned about it that I am. I don't see Ashcroft as all that bad, but they do. They see things like the funding of religious organizations for charitable work as a really bad thing that is just the start of worse things. So I don't know, I see the US as pretty secular and have never felt that there was any social, employment or legal disadvantages to being an atheist. But some folks do.

[zakur]

Atheist Empire (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=atheist_empire/start=10)

:D

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Malachi151:
I really woudl like to move to Germany but I understnad its not easy to immigrate to Europe. I'll probably do it eventually, assuming that Bush does not win. If Bush win's the next election I may go ahead and try to move now and get out of here before it all goes to hell.

Hmm, by that time Germany could well be ruled by a political party known as the "Christian Democrats". As well as that I seem to remember that the German federal government actually collects revenue for the churches via income tax. While European societies are a lot more secular than America's, there's usually a cosy relationship between government's the churches.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Hmm, by that time Germany could well be ruled by a political party known as the "Christian Democrats". As well as that I seem to remember that the German federal government actually collects revenue for the churches via income tax.

That's true - as long as you are a member of the church , either roman catholic or protestant. If you resign your membership, you save the Kirchensteuer.

The two major churches are deeply rooted in the German society, but we also practice a liberal stance towards faith of different kinds since Kant and Friedrich dem Großen (except for the 1000 years between 33 and 45 - hey, has anyone ever noticed that those are the two major speeds to operate a record player?)

Zee

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman:
That's true - as long as you are a member of the church , either roman catholic or protestant. If you resign your membership, you save the Kirchensteuer.

Interesting. I wonder how many people actually choose to renege on their church membership, and whether there's any difference between Catholics and Protestants in this regard?

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Which is the best country in the world for atheists? This is prompted by another thread, in which a U.S. resident said, "I'm ready to move to Canada", and someone else responded that New Zealand is better.

Which country has the least oppression of non-theists, in principle and in practice?

None. I don't think one should ever choose to find a "better" place for this or that because there will always still be *something* that you don't like about here, there or somewhere. I think it is more important to improve where one is rather than running away. Problems have a nasty tendency to follow one around.

[Luciana]

Since our first Constitution, in 1824, that Brazil has been a secular country. In he following 65 years the country was a monarchy, and both emperors had a confrontational attitude towards the Catholic Church. One of the main reasons of the destitution of our monarchy was that the heir to throne, Princess Isabel de Bragança, was a devout Catholic, and the politicians feared for what she could do once she gained power.

Our last president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, democratically elected twice, was a self-professed atheist. Granted, he mostly avoided the subject, but everybody knew his position on that.

Abortion is illegal in Brazil. Many claim this is due to the RC Church opposition, but I don't really believe in it. What weighs more is that the majority of the population is against it, regardless of religious affiliation.

In our bills there's the inscription "God be Blessed", but I think it's there more because of tradition. There wouldn't be an outcry if they decided to remove it.

There are no publicly-funded religious schools, because our laws don't allow it. Atheists and agnostics make up 7,3% of the population, and the number has been growing steadily - I believe people are just more willing to admit they don't believe in God.

I've checked the numbers: 73,8% of the population are self-professed Catholics (125 million). But I beg to differ. This is how Brazilians identify themselves - if you were christened, you're Catholic - but the vast majority do not frequent churches and, most importantly, mingle with other religions. As much as 22,5% admit to visiting other religious temples occasionally; 33,8% believe in spiritualism (Alan Kardec has many followers here) and 15% believe in the African-based gods. On the other hand, 80% of non-Catholics believe in Jesus Christ.

If anything, that goes to show that religious tolerance is very high; you are not expected to follow a single religion throughout or life or remain faithful to it. And if you're an atheist, that's ok too. Shrug. Actually, in my school class, a Jewish boy and I were the only ones not to graduate from Sunday School. (I quit in the middle). Our whole class was there, but us. There was never a problem. I was 10 by then, I would have remembered. That was never an issue.

I'm not a militant atheist, but upon professing my position I've met reactions ranging from utter indifference to a mild surprise - "you??" Damn it, do I look religious? :) I've never felt inadequate for being an atheist. I also understand that I live in an urban area. We do have the equivalent of the Bible Belt in the Northeast (coincidentally, the poorest area of the country) but I'm fairly certain that an atheist would be met with superstitious fear for a while, but not blatant hostility.

Apparently, the Evangelists are growing in number. They have many radio and TV channels, and that's how they spread their words. They're very vocal and very, very conservative. Like a deputy in Rio who wants to provide financial support for those who want to "quit" homosexualism. But fortunately, they have been ignored in all their unsuitable demands.

The current governor in Rio is highly religious, but she's defending the cause of extended rights for homosexual couples. And those who accuse her of incoherence - you know, I prefer like this. I have no need for religious fundies fuming over the same old issues.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Well, this thread apparently stemed from a comment I made, so I guess I should weigh in.

For the most part, I do not feel oppressed in the US as an atheist, at least by the government. There are some societal issues that do get raised in my situation since I live in the "buckle of the bible belt." I wouldn't call it oppression, but it is certainly a kind of disdain towards me.

I remember when I first moved here, the first question my new boss asked me was "Have you picked out a church yet?" I will never forget his confused expression when I responded: "I haven't. Do you know of a good Ashram in the area?" I then had to explain to him what an Ashram was. For the entire time I worked for him, I'm pretty sure he thought I had to be joking.

I am assaulted by religious symbols just about everywhere I go here. It doesn't offend me, but it does make me uncomfortable.

I am, in essence, a Zen Buddhist. When a neighbor found that out (He came to the door asking for me and my wife told him I was meditating) I suddenly, and periodically, began finding "Chick Tracts" in my mail. This, I do find offensive.

Getting to the initial point of my Canada comment: I said I was moving to Canada because I hold three national citizenships already; American, Canadian, and Irish. Of the three, I have found less discomfort living in Canada.

Editted to add:

When people find out that I am an atheist I often get a reaction on par with what I would get if I claimed that I like to eat an occasional baby now and then
This is one of the funniest (and probably most accurate) descriptions of what I go through where I live.

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by davefoc
Interestingly, when I worked in China, I was asked if I believed in God. I have never been asked that question before. When I told them I didn't, they seemed comforted and told me that most young people in China (I was moderately young at the time) didn't either. I worked in Saudi Arabia for some time a few years back. You had to state what religion you were. Not only was this information contained in your work permit (which had to be carried with you at all times), but it also determined what colour the cover of the permit was. Mine was brown for Christian (Atheist wasn't a concept they were comfortable with). Muslims had a white permit. Only those with a white permit can visit certain areas of the country.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by KelvinG

I'm just curious why you feel freedom of speech is suppressed here more than in the USA. I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong, but it's not immediately evident to me why you feel this is the case.

Mostly just a lot of small things:
- more government regulation of the media (e.g. CRTC, Canadian Content Laws) than I feel is necessary. (Example: I remember hearing a local radio talk show host commenting on how he got warned by the govenment over a show that he did.)
- the censoring of certain movies and other adult materials coming into the country (as I mentioned before, the Little Sisters case is a prime example)
- publication bans made on court cases
- language laws (French must be dominant in Quebec, and anything having to do with the federal government must be bilingual)

I'm not saying Canada doesn't have a certain amount of 'freedom of speech', and I know that some limits are necessary; I just feel that the US has a slightly greater (and perferrable) level of free speech than Canada does

Originally posted by KelvinG

Also, I find it difficult to condemn the whole country as having a repressive police state based on one antecdote by James Randi.
If I even dig up one example of police repression in the USA does that mean that I can conclude that Canada is more "free" in this regard than the USA?

Obviously, I am not basing everything on that one anecdote. Of course, before you talk about 'repression', I do like to make a distinction between legally supported repression (as Randi had suggested happened), and 'illegal' repression, where police go outside the law (whether the police get criticized or not).

Remember, in Canada, we don't have the same thing as 'Miranda' rights, property rights are not part of the constitution, and lets face it, the 'not withstanding' clause makes it possible for the constitution to basically be ignored.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Tony
America, im a non-theist and I have never been oppressed. In fact, im more oppressed as a gun owner and indo smoker than I am oppressed as a non-theist.

This any many other quotes in the same vein make me want to say that while I don't feel as an atheist that I am "sought out" to be oppressed, and I have confidence still that the law would support me if I ever was. However I am routinely insulted by direct contemptuous references by public figures against "non believers", and indirectly by the pandering of politicians to such groups, and by the constant attempts to change the constitution (which has served us well enough until now) in favor of specific religious demands.

I do not believe that any other "western" country would tolerate the same simmering intolerance to atheists.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by corplinx
Pronouncing yourself an athiest has always seemed kinda smarmy to me.

I wonder if that's a cultural byproduct of the negative connotation atheist has in the U.S?

[Tony]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


I wonder if that's a cultural byproduct of the negative connotation atheist has in the U.S?

Maybe, but I doubt it. Identifying oneself as an atheist is kind of stupid, it’s like identifying your self as a non-soccer player.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Tony
Maybe, but I doubt it. Identifying oneself as an atheist is kind of stupid, it’s like identifying your self as a non-soccer player. In a crowded stadium amongst thousands of people who live and breathe the game and who are cheering vehemently for one team or another and are prepared to brawl in their support (like in South America), if you did do this out loud you WOULD stand out and you would be looked at sideways by both sides. Context makes a difference.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony


Maybe, but I doubt it. Identifying oneself as an atheist is kind of stupid, it’s like identifying your self as a non-soccer player.

In some theoretical ideal world you would be correct. However society as a whole tends to expect you to subscribe to some sort of religion and believe in some sort of god. Therefore if you do not, it is not unreasonable to label oneself as an atheist. If there wasn't that cultural expectation, then your analogy would be correct.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by corplinx
I'm not an atheist or an agnostic, I am ex-gen-xer and am just plain apathetic about the whole deity thing. I don't believe, I don't care if there is a god, and I don't care enough to label myself over it.

Pronouncing yourself an athiest has always seemed kinda smarmy to me.

Anyway, not giving a crap about something is a good american trait. I feel quite at home.

Almost as goofy as calling yourself a "bright". (http://www.atheistparents.org/pages.php?sc=001&pg=0150)

[karl]

Getting back to the original topic, last year some researchers at Aalborg University asked people in 25 countries the question "Do you believe in God?" These are some of the results:

Portugal: 92 %
Poland: 86 %
USA: 84 %
Israel: 76 %
Denmark: 53 %
France: 45 %
Germany: 44 %
Norway: 43 %
Sweden: 32 %

(Reported by Kristeligt Dagblad (http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/forside/artikel:aid=28931).)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by mummymonkey

Just you wait till the fair and balanced war on secularism gets going.

I'm sure the ecological collapse that the socialist greenies have been promising since 1969 will occur first... ;)

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Mostly just a lot of small things:
- more government regulation of the media (e.g. CRTC, Canadian Content Laws) than I feel is necessary. (Example: I remember hearing a local radio talk show host commenting on how he got warned by the govenment over a show that he did.)
- the censoring of certain movies and other adult materials coming into the country (as I mentioned before, the Little Sisters case is a prime example)
- publication bans made on court cases
- language laws (French must be dominant in Quebec, and anything having to do with the federal government must be bilingual)

I'm not saying Canada doesn't have a certain amount of 'freedom of speech', and I know that some limits are necessary; I just feel that the US has a slightly greater (and perferrable) level of free speech than Canada does



Obviously, I am not basing everything on that one anecdote. Of course, before you talk about 'repression', I do like to make a distinction between legally supported repression (as Randi had suggested happened), and 'illegal' repression, where police go outside the law (whether the police get criticized or not).

Remember, in Canada, we don't have the same thing as 'Miranda' rights, property rights are not part of the constitution, and lets face it, the 'not withstanding' clause makes it possible for the constitution to basically be ignored.

Good post Seg. You got my interest seriously piqued, as well as making me realize just how little I actually know about the inner workings of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I'm going to peruse it in more detail and may have some responses in the near future should I get off my lazy ass and actually compose a response more than a couple of lines.

BTW, do you have a link to the story you mentioned about a local radio host got warned by the government over a show he did. Sounds interesting and disturbing.

Cheers.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Good post Seg. You got my interest seriously piqued, as well as making me realize just how little I actually know about the inner workings of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


I have to admit, I'm not an expert in it as well. But, I've read enough of it (and seen some of the effects in the news) to be worried...

Originally posted by KelvinG

BTW, do you have a link to the story you mentioned about a local radio host got warned by the government over a show he did. Sounds interesting and disturbing.


The radio host in question was Lowel Green, who hosts a phone-in program on CFRA here in Ottawa (See: www.cfra.com). He was complaining about the Liberal govenrment cancelling the Somalia inquiry, and to 'prove' his point, he had made sarcastic remarks (along the lines of 'it was only a Somali kid'). Most people who actually listened to the show would recognize it as sarcasm, but someone did make a complaint to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (a group semi-supported by the government.) The CBSC ruled against Green. (Ironic he gets blamed for racism, when the goal of his show was to complain about how the government was handling the deaths of a Somali youth.)

Now, I'm not saying Green's show was good or not, and obviously there was no real negative impact to the CBSC's ruling. However, the fact that we have such an agency, and that it actually ruled against Green is the issue. (Radio broadcasters are given more freedom in the US.)

Try:
http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decision/980220i.htm
http://www.google.ca/search?q=Lowell+Green+CFRA+Somalia&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

[CWL]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Which is the best country in the world for atheists? This is prompted by another thread, in which a U.S. resident said, "I'm ready to move to Canada", and someone else responded that New Zealand is better.

Which country has the least oppression of non-theists, in principle and in practice?

Sweden is extremely secular. Probobaly more so than both Canada and New Zealand. It's hard to come by people in this country who are true practicing Christians.