The Secular Coalition for America’s Briefing with the Obam

[McCulloch]

Friendly Atheist.com: Update the Secular Coalition For America's briefing with the Obama administration

Our issues are

1. religious exemptions for child abuse,

   One of the speakers [...] was Liz Heywood, whose Christian Scientist parents denied her proper medical treatment as a child to care for her bone infection; instead, they just prayed for her. Not surprisingly, that failed. Her leg had permanent damage and three years ago (to the day), she had her leg amputated.
   
   “I fell through the cracks at every turn,� Heywood said of her experience as a sick teen in a faith-healing home. “I am hoping I can make a difference with my story.�

2. military proselytization,
3. Faith-Based discrimination.

   As part of the official briefing, American Atheists Vice President and Military Director Kathleen Johnson told White House representatives: “I have witnessed firsthand how service members who are openly non-theist have been harassed by their commanders, leaders, and peers, and have been disrespected by their subordinates for failing to hold certain religious beliefs.�
   
   Johnson called for the Obama Administration to “demonstrate its commitment to improving the climate for non-theists by ensuring nominees to key senior leadership positions answer hard questions intended to identify if they hold views detrimental to non-theists and if so, that such views be considered a disqualification for that officer.�

Questions for debate:
Should President Obama address our concerns?
Should there continue to be a religious exemption for child abuse?
Should the religious proselytization in the US military continue to be allowed?
Should measures be taken to screen those with anti-atheist biases from public office?
By asking for these protections, are the non-theists demonstrating that we are some of the most hate-filled, anti-religious groups in the nation ?

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Should President Obama address our concerns?

As a representative of all Americans, yes.

Should there continue to be a religious exemption for child abuse?

NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Believe as you wish, but your children are more important than to sacrifice to the altar of that belief.

Should the religious proselytization in the US military continue to be allowed?

No. The right to freedom of thought is sacrosanct.

Should measures be taken to screen those with anti-atheist biases from public office?

A bit tricky. If one professes actively denying atheists (or anyone) their rights, then they should be prevented from seeking office.

By asking for these protections, are the non-theists demonstrating that we are some of the most hate-filled, anti-religious groups in the nation ?

That is a common rhetorical tool of the very ones so full of hate for others. I consider it no more than projection.

Atheists will tend to try to understand why they hate someone, or a group, whereas some theists will typically have their hate informed by, and most importantly, caused by their religious texts.

[East of Eden]

Should the religious proselytization in the US military continue to be allowed?

No. The right to freedom of thought is sacrosanct.

So why shut down debate? Any group, including atheists, should be able to make their case on their own time and nickel.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 3:

Should the religious proselytization in the US military continue to be allowed?

No. The right to freedom of thought is sacrosanct.

So why shut down debate? Any group, including atheists, should be able to make their case on their own time and nickel.

Fair 'nuff. I may have read more into the statement than was intended.

I hold onto my claim if we think in terms of official or even unofficial harassment or other retribution regarding anyone's (non-violent) a/religious rights.

[McCulloch]

Any group, including atheists, should be able to make their case on their own time and nickel.

And no group should be allowed to use the resources and authority of any government service, including the military branches, to promote their faith. A private in the army, a clerk at city hall or a cop on the beat should not be made to feel that it would benefit their career to belong to the religion of the higher ups. People in authority who have strong religious convictions have a responsibility not to let their religious beliefs interfere with the fair and just execution of their duties, especially with regard to those whose work they may be supervising.