All Comments (31)

dear sir,is it me or do I detect some anti-catholic sentiment with most of the people in your group.Don't they know that without the catholic church this country would not be the superpower that it is today.It is only a matter of time until the country is being run by the catholics.They already run the supreme court and half the military is made up of soldiers of the catholic faith.God bless you protestants., tony

I think it's probably a bit of both, but mostly the result of their social conditioning to believe that their martyrdom will be rewarded. That religious belief can compel people to embrace such horrendous ideas that so completely devalue the lives of anyone who stands in opposition is the best argument against being sensitive to that class of ideas. Here's another - we have the highest percentage of our population in prison of any nation on Earth due to our cruel and wholly irrational drug laws that have purely religious underpinnings. The 9-11 hijackers destroyed several thousand lives. Religious based laws destroy tens of thousands every year in this country alone.

"No idea should become 'sacred' just because its adherents claim it's the inspired word of some unprovable deity. Making such a claim as a shield against criticism of a set of ideas is disingenuous when you wouldn't make the same claim regarding non-religious ideas."

And I agree. My question is this - when people claim that God ordered them to commit an act, or that their afterlife destination depends on committing the act, are they being honest, or are they simply using their religious beliefs to justify their own desire to commit the act? Does this depend on the individual believer's personality? It's terrifying to contemplate that the 9/11 hijackers really believed they would be rewarded in an afterlife.

Yes, that's a good point, Tonio, and partly what I was actually trying to express. You could rephrase it to "if the string theory proponent said 'you'll burn in eternal hellfire for not believing in string theory!' that would seem rather silly, no?'" ;)

"If the string theory proponent said 'how can you attack this scientific theory that I hold sacred?! You bigot!' it would seem rather silly, no? After all it's just a theory that's being debated. Religions are no different.

I disagree. Religions are different because some of them say that members of other religions will burn forever in hell, or deserve to do so. That type of hateful doctrine simply doesn't exist in the world of science. No matter how divisive the debates became over the light and particle theories of light, to my knowledge neither Huygens nor Newton ever said that his opponent deserved to die for his position on the issue.

Ralph, "What do we lose by being sensitive to others?"

That all depends on what it is we're being sensitive to. Should I, as an atheist, be sensitive to discrimination codified into state constitutions? If I take to task people who would support such things and defend it as part of their sacred cherished beliefs, am I being insensitive? We have to distinguish between attacking people and attacking their ideas.

The definition of "being sensitive" changes to suit those who would use it as a shield against criticism, based on this notion people hold that their particular "beliefs" should be beyond reproach simply because they declare them "faith" or "sacred" or "divinely inspired" as if that somehow separates them from any other kind of idea. It doesn't, no matter how dearly you hold them. You yourself engaged in this sleight of hand when you dismissed the notion that atheists are discriminated against to a greater degree than the religious.

What bothers me about people's quickness to claim bigotry and intolerance is that every single human being on the planet is a bigot, unless they're incapable of forming an opinion. We all hold certain beliefs, ideas, and notions that we feel are superior to others, or else we could never believe anything in opposition to anyone else. In that sense the words are almost meaningless, aside from the usefulness they serve as a semantic weapon. I think claims of intolerance and discrimination should be reserved for instances when your freedom or rights are being impeded as a result. A verbal debate, no matter how heated, or how vitriolic the participants are being, can never rise to that definition.

I'm a big advocate of polite disagreement, even though I myself often fall short of it, but I think ANY idea or belief should be open for vigorous debate and criticism. If someone strongly disagrees with a certain idea or belief and expresses it, is that automatically an attack on the person who believes it? I don't think so.

Part of religious indoctrination is this notion that anyone who attacks its doctrine and beliefs is being intolerant in a way they wouldn't be accused of if they were attacking any other kind of idea with equal vigor.

Imagine if two scientists are having a heated debate about a particular theory of physics - perhaps one of them is strongly opposed to string theory and calls it crazy or delusional or just plain stupid. Should the other scientist feel that they've just been personally attacked? Not really - at least not in a way deserving of the intolerance, discrimination, or bigotry labels. Even though the other scientist is being overly vitriolic in his argument he's still attacking the theory itself, even if he gets a bit carried away. If the string theory proponent said "how can you attack this scientific theory that I hold sacred?! You bigot!" it would seem rather silly, no? After all it's just a theory that's being debated. Religions are no different. They are theories too - not in the scientific sense, but within the realm of human ideas. Now if one of the arguing scientists starts smacking the other upside the head, or refuses to let him rent an apartment, or fires him from his job, then it rises to intolerance and discrimination. In the realm of ideas we are all prejudiced.

No idea should become "sacred" just because its adherents claim it's the inspired word of some unprovable deity. Making such a claim as a shield against criticism of a set of ideas is disingenuous when you wouldn't make the same claim regarding non-religious ideas. That's not to say the person is being disingenuous on purpose. The reaction is built in to the belief systems - very unfairly I might add as no other type of idea is afforded the same protection from vigorous disagreement. People are socially conditioned to react that way. To the dispassionate observer it seems an absurdity when you consider that adherents of the same religion can't even agree on what their "sacred" instruction manuals are actually instructing.

Last night I was chatting with a friend of mine online who firmly believes that the moon landing was a hoax staged by the US government to strike fear in the Russians. I think that belief is downright nutty, and told her so, and we argued about it rather passionately. I believe at one point I told her she was crazy. Neither of us was ever offended by our debate. She didn't call me a bigot, nor I her. She doesn't consider me intolerant as a result. Imagine if we had been having an argument of equal vigor about a religious belief? I would most definitely be eligible to be called a bigot for calling her crazy for believing it. Is the distinction rational? Nope - not in my book it's not.

Now imagine two people who are of the same basic religion are arguing about the interpretation of a specific verse in their holy book - perhaps, say, about what Jesus or some other prophet meant by a particular phrase or passage. Even if the argument got heated, is either likely to accuse the other of intolerance? Are they going to claim discrimination? It's not very likely. But if two people of different religions are having an equally heated argument, you can bet that one or both of them are going to claim to be the victim of intolerance and bigotry and discrimination. Why the difference? I can think of only two - tribal rivalry and social conditioning.

That's why claims of intolerance often make me simply roll my eyes. Why should any class of ideas be held to a more stringent standard regarding the etiquette of criticizing it? To do so simply isn't justified on any real rational basis.

So, what is it to be sensitive to other people's beliefs? Does it mean to keep one's mouth shut and not challenge a certain class of ideas, even when those ideas are used to justify things like barring certain people from holding public office, or the right to marry or adopt children, or pursue certain areas of scientific inquiry, or putting thousands of people in prison for the ridiculous notion of victimless crimes based on purely religious ideas about sin? If being sensitive to others beliefs entails those things then some people lose quite a lot - their civil rights, their jobs, their children, and even their freedom. Should such things be protected just because some people have been conditioned to be intolerant of having their ideas challenged?

This issue is a lot bigger than just people's feelings, and one need only look at our laws and those in other religious majority countries - and see how polluted they are with irrational religious prejudices - to see the utter hypocrisy of religious people crying about having their sacred cows poked with the pointy stick of criticism. There is a fundamental difference between discrimination based on things that are in no way under the control of those being discriminated against, like skin color or sexual preference, and discrimination against things that are nothing more than ideas, and that latter category encompasses all religions.

Now, if Roman Catholics are being denied housing and jobs based, or being passed over for promotion in the careers, based on their religion, then by all means they have a legitimate reason to claim discrimination, but I suspect such instances are extremely rare in this day and age. They are not at all rare for many others - atheists, blacks, gays - and much of that can be directly attributed to the religious beliefs of those doing the discriminating.

There are no greater perpetrators of discrimination in the world than the religious. If you would deny two people the right to marry or deny someone the right to hold a public office, or even the right to use contraception, based on religious belief, and then have the gall to claim discrimination or intolerance when those practices are challenged, you deserve to be challenged,and are not entitled to make those who would challenge you walk on eggshells to do it.

"Danny B. is not candide. I am."

Again, no one said that. I said that Anonymous must be Candide.

CHIP I will accept as truthful your quotes from the various state constitutions, but your quotes don't fully prove your point. They address elective political office, which is not like standard employment. Also, why couldn't an atheist qualify under these statutes as someone who believes that mankind is the Supreme Being, and someone who believes that Capitalism will provide the future rewards and punishments?

Your head spins pretty easily, Chip. But I will acknowledge that your head was spinning based on your own statements, even though many people who post here do not accept as truthful statements by Roman Catholics who have said they experienced wrongful discrimination.

What do we lose by being sensitive to others?

Chip, thanks for posting those quotes from the various state constitutions. It enrages me that anyone would even want to include such ideas in any government's constitution. They constitute hatred, pure and simple. If the US Supreme Court hasn't ruled those sections unconstitutional, it should do so immediately. (Personally, I would follow that with a symbolic burning of the sections, as a public demonstration of our refusal to tolerate doctrinal bigotry. Thanks for allowing me to vent.

Danny B. is not candide. I am.

The persistence of religious folly is simply a sign that despite science, education and progress the heart of man remains that of a dumb chimp.

Have you ever had a conversation with a redneck Baptist from Georgia? A Polak Catholic from Pittsburgh? A Boston Irishman not molested by his priest? I rest my case. I hope I have offended a lot of people.

Anonymous,

Either you have never read Candide's other posts, or you are Candide!

My language "hissy fit", as you put it, is valid. Just because you don't understand the use of the language doesn't make me wrong, anymore than it makes Candide correct.

"But there are attitudes which however distorted still have some validity; we call them cliches. They are partial truths."

This statement is ABSURD! I am not splitting hairs, this is a RE-definition of the word cliche!

There IS a difference between discrimination and bias. Candide keeps claiming there is no bias by using the word discrimination. That is, "focusing on the language" and using a red herring to bolster an argument.

Then there are the wonderfully intelligent, cultured, and un-biased quotes by Candide:

(see also: More Prejudice from the Elite Than From the Street)

“If you're a Catholic, blame your bad conscience on discrimination, not on your stupid church and crazy religion.”

“Religious beliefs do not even deserve freedom to propagate.”

“I look for the day (unfortunately long in coming) when the last Catholic is strangled in the entrails of the last Protestant”

“…the crazy Evangelicals who are as stupid as the Catholics.”

“American Catholics remian Irish, Italian and Polish peasants and will need centuries to change.”

“hated of Christianity -- any version thereof -- is a sign of mental health.”

“Don't take this as anti-Catholic. American Protestant rednecks are the same”

This, among other broad claims that Catholics are uneducated, and uncultured are what I am talking about.

If you are going to make arguments that people of faith are stupid and uncultured...shouldn't you keeep yourself in check and think through your thoughts before you speak publicly?

If the subject were institutional discrimintaion of the faithful, I would AGREE with Candide. But that is not what his ridiculous assertions are anyway, and if they are in fact valid, should not require all the hate talk.

Furthermore, If you are going to make claims that people of faith are stupid and uncultured...shouldn't you keeep yourself in check and think through your thoughts before you speak publicly?

"Finding a set of ideas to be not only irrational but historically dangerous does not constitute bias or discrimination."

Yes, it does constitute bias, as Candide's use of the language shows(among other ignorant displays), his thoughts about what is "irrational", and actual knowledge are suspect. He is expressing opinions, based on obvious BIAS! See above.

No point is effectively argued without knowing the language and how to use it...first!

As far as my "inability to deal with the sense made by Candide's posts", as I said before, you are probably Candide.

Danny B.,

Your most effective form of disagreement with Candide is to throw a language hissy fit?

Finding a set of ideas to be not only irrational but historically dangerous does not constitute bias or discrimination.

Your own "red herring"--focusing on the language--is at root an inability to deal with the sense made by Candide's posts.

I noticed after I posted that Madrone beat me to it.
Why haven't these Constitutions been amended? Imagine if they denied Blacks the right to hold public office, even if they weren't currently enforced? Imagine if they denied Christians? People's heads would explode.

Ralph wrote "For example, one person above believes that athiests are discriminated against more than any other group. However, applying standards of discrimination cited in other posts, there are no laws prohibiting the employment of athiests or Roman Catholics."

That's entirely incorrect. So incorrect it makes my head spin. There are seven state constitutions which forbid atheists from holding public office.

Arkansas State Constitution, Article 19 Section 1 ("Miscellaneous Provisions")
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court.

Maryland's Declaration of Rights, Article 36
"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."

Massachusetts' State Constitution, Article 3
"every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law."

Apparently Non-Christians are not "equally under the protection of the law".

Mississippi State Constitution. Article 14 ("General Provisions"), Section 265
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina's State Constitution, Article 6 Section 8
"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

Pennsylvania's State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

South Carolina's State Constitution, Article 4 Section 2
"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; ..."
Note: If you continue reading you will find that (in Section 8) the Lieutenant Governor must also meet the same qualifications as the Governor.

Tennessee's State Constitution, Article 9 Section 2
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

Texas' State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

Further, since Bush, as part of his faith based initiative, overturned the law that forbade religious charities from discriminating in hiring on the basis of religion, try and be an atheist social worker and get a job now without having to lie about your beliefs. The Salvation Army, after that law was overturned, circulated a questionnaire among its employees asking them to state the frequency of their church attendance and name their pastors, and state their religion. Those that weren't Christian were forced out of their jobs - many who had worked there for decades. Their social services departments which received government funding were previously required to operate like any other secular charity.

To hear religious people cry crocodile tears about being discriminated against, when discrimination is codified in their religious doctrines and practice, is quite hilarious. Intolerance is just fine, as long as they're the ones doing it.

Mommadona,

To everything you've said,

??????????????

Candide,

I have to say, I admire your conviction.

Are you over here now, trying to peddle your religious bigotry decorated with phony intellectualism again? Still using the word "discrimination" to argue that there is no Catholic "bias", and then displaying your bigotry at every turn?

"Many of the so-called anti-catholic attitudes have some validity."

"...they sense that non-catholics and even fallen-away catholics did not respect their crazy church and crazy beliefs."

"nutty teachings of the Mormons"

"the moral blindness of the Evangelicals"

Are you trying to convince yourself? If so, of what? That you are not a bigot, or that you are really the intellectual that you fancy yourself to be?

"But there are attitudes which however distorted still have some validity; we call them cliches. They are partial truths."

Who is the "we" to whom you refer? Distorted, but valid attitudes which are partial truths are not what cliches are.

cliche: a sentence or phrase, usually expressing a popular or common thought or idea, that has lost originality, ingenuity, and impact by long overuse.

A common thought is not a guarantee of truth, to begin with.

Examles of cliches:

Red as a rose

Happily ever after

Dead as a doornail

Though I would never presume to know what you mean, I suspect you have "cliche" confused with proverbs or adages.

proverb:a short popular saying, usually of unknown and ancient origin, that expresses effectively some commonplace truth or useful thought; adage

Examples of proverbs:

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

All that glitters is not gold.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. <-----!

Though I wouldn't take YOUR word for it, you have used the term "red herring" correctly. The irony there is that you use the term in the midst of one. Again, the topic in the thread is about the existence of Catholic BIAS (although other faiths are included here too). You argue about there being no institutional DISCRIMINATION, while displaying a militant and ignorant BIAS with everything you argue.

Come on Candide, most of this is High School level English.

The ultimate point of the author's post is:

"But when such attacks become truly venomous, and especially when they take place out in the open, in public venues, it's really up to the rest of us to condemn them for what they are and to do so in the name of a civil society whose health we all should value."

Actually a few state Constitutions discriminate against atheists in the United States, although they arn't enforced, they still exist.

The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

South Carolina's Constitution, Article 6 Section 2: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

Tennessee's Bill of Rights: Article 9, Section 2: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

Would it be a contradiction for a man to be both an American citizen and a Catholic priest? A priest is a subject of his Holiness the Pope -- a foreign potentate.

Mommadonna--

I don't follow.
Are saying we are being invaded by Vatican City?

Posted March 20, 2007 3:30 PM

I am stating the fact that you have a powerful entity that is both a NATION and a RELIGION.

I am stating that such an entity, by default, establishes it's OWN agenda.

When ANYONE outside of that entity QUESTIONS that agenda.......the word "discrimination" pops up.

AND FOR KENT:

"But when such attacks become truly venomous, and especially when they take place out in the open, in public venues, it's really up to the rest of us to condemn them for what they are and to do so in the name of a civil society whose health we all should value."

Sorry you consider it "loathsome" - truth hurts.

And, I would refer you to my explanation above.

"THE REST OF US" = Catholics....see?

Bush of the 43rd said it best:

"Yer WITH us, or yer AGAINST us".

Yep. That about sums up the Catholic Church's view. ; )

This issue of possible discrimination vs. catholics is a red herring. Catholics are not discriminated against but they feel discriminated against for one very good reason: they sense that non-catholics and even fallen-away catholics did not respect their crazy church and crazy beliefs. Just as many do not respect the nutty teachings of the Mormons of the moral blindness of the Evangelicals who do not even know how the bible they venerate really came into being. One chages discrimination when one feels bad but does not want really to get at the true reason for feeling bad: association with an evil and/or silly religious body.

Momadonna,

I'm not Catholic and have no interesting becoming Catholic. Nevertheless, I find your remarks loathsome. But perhaps it's useful to have an example to illustrate Niebuhr's final paragraph.

Yep,

;)

"The Pope? How many divisions has he got?"

--Joseph Stalin

Mommadonna--

I don't follow.
Are saying we are being invaded by Vatican City?

OK, I'LL ASK:

The Catholic Church is in a unique global situation - being both a SOVEREIGN NATION and a RELIGION.

WHY is the Catholic Church fighting to keep ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS from being deported OUT of the UNITED STATES?

Could it be that the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS are also MEMBERS OF THEIR SOVEREIGN NATION/RELIGION?

WHY did the Catholic Church FIGHT people demanding answers to CHILD AND SEXUAL ABUSE by priests?

Could it be that the CHILD AND SEXUAL ABUSERS were MEMBERS OF THEIR SOVEREIGN NATION/RELIGION?

It's like being SLIGHTLY PREGNANT.

When the entity is BOTH the GOVERNMENT OF THE SOVEREIGN NATION and the HEAD of a WORLD WIDE RELIGION.....the "outside" view is seen as "discrimination", when it is ACTUALLY the WORLD ASKING FOR ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE ENTITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF THEIR MEMBERS.

As the CHURCH LADY SAYS:

"Now, ISN'T THAT SPECIAL?"

I don't know that Roman Catholics are discriminated against, but there seems to be an agreement among many non-Roman Catholics writing from the panel that they are not or that the discrimination Catholics experience is not important. So if discrimination does exist, many people are not sensitive to it.

One person posted that discrimination does not exist because there are no laws that forbid Roman Catholics from being hired. However, we normally don't limit definitions of discrimination to laws.

If, for example, a person said discrimination against blacks did not exist because there are no laws prohibiting blacks from being hired, then they would be considered racially insensitive. Likewise, if someone said there is no discrimination against women because there females serving as House Speaker, Secretary of State, Supreme Court Justice(s), and network news anchors, then again they would be considered insensitive.

In fact, in the case of women, many people believe that a "glass ceiling" exists. What is a glass ceiling? It is an invisible barrier, not a law. Yet when the question of discrimination is asked about Roman Catholics, the standard for proof for some is the existence of laws. The example of five Supreme Court Justices is likewise proof to the contrary, some say. Everyone however knows that absence of discriminatory laws and a few exceptions to the rule doesn't prove what is the experience for many others.

Might anyone know of recent poll data on rank-and-file Roman Catholics and their experience of discrimination against them?

RALPH:

Your Post hit the nail squarely on the head. In my opinion. And I only wish it were as MR. Niebuhr would like it to be. That discrimination is confronted and rooted out when it is found. But unfortunately it is not. I think that as a society we have all been told by the media and our political leaders who is allowed to be a target of ridicule and "passive aggressive discrimination". Its there no matter how much the Political Gestapo refuses to recognize it. Your example of basketball players is only one example of many more. Yet there are people who will justify such blatant discrimination by whatever excuse. Our politicians and religious leaders do nothing about it either. I personally don't ever see discrimination being done away with. Its one of the favorite tools of politicians and religious leaders to get them members in their party, or the church. Its like the old saying
"If you don't have a enemy to hate, then where is the battle?" I have worked contract for government agencies for many years. Once in a area that was predominately Hispanic the Director of a government agency hired me to write a grant. She wanted only Hispanics that were not catholic as staff. She and her administration staff despised the catholic religion and its teachings.
As a writer for hire so to speak I had grown accustom to seeing such discrimination in most government agencies. We even have a saying for it in government, "Who is the minority of the week". I can promise you this though, its never any religion!

Ralph,

You seem to be saying that Catholics are being discriminated against in America. Yet you offer no examples. What are you talking about?

It is interesting to see people avoid the topic of wrongful discrimination against Roman Catholics by turning the subject to discrimination against the group with which they identify or to another group of people that is discriminated against. Several people have done this, including panelists who are selected as experts on topics of religion.

For example, one person above believes that athiests are discriminated against more than any other group. However, applying standards of discrimination cited in other posts, there are no laws prohibiting the employment of athiests or Roman Catholics. So how can there be any discrimination against either group? At the root of what we are seeing is a double standard used by people who measure discrimination against Roman Catholics one way and discrimination against other groups and the group to which they identify another way.

Most people consider wrongful discrimination to be morally reprehensible. Yet many people who feel that way appear to be inconsistent with their the way the perceive and measure discrimination. They favor their friends and their like-minded political allies, and are blind to the discrimination of those with whom they disagree or with whom they do not affiliate.

If you cannot or will not see discrimination against those you don't like, are you advocating justice or "just-us?"

Professor Niebuhr & Ralph,

Both in American society at large and in these threads I don't perceive any bias, intolerance or discrimination against Catholics as individual persons. I haven't seen a single post mocking a particular Catholic belief or person.

The Catholic hierarchy and its partisans are very quick to label opposition to the Church's political agenda as intolerance and bigotry, which it is not.

This labeling is a smart move by the hierarchy - it intimdates its political opponents by spreading the impression that they are horrible bigots, when all they are doing is arguing for a different set of laws than what the Church wants.

Ralph,

Michael Jordan, Barry Bonds, etc. do not decide on any laws. They play children's games for a living. The Supreme Court has actual power.

Catholic people are not descriminated against in modern America. As the author wrote there may very well be many with a personal bias against the Catholic Church, but actual discrimination?

No.

Individual prejudice is bad enough but laws cannot solve the problem, only education and perhaps time. But there are attitudes which however distorted still have some validity; we call them cliches. They are partial truths.

Many of the so-called anti-catholic attitudes have some validity. But I don't think Catholics are discriminated against in any meaningful way.

Atheists are indeed discriminated against more than any other group, yet they are arguably the least harmful, the most moral, and the most truthful. You might think a man who believed in God would be more truthworthy, but in practice this is rarely the case. I think atheists would be best as your companion in a foxhole.

I was raised to believe that we are all minorities in one way or another because such a belief will sensitize us to the feelings of others. So if someone claims discrimination or wrongful mistreatment, then that claim is supposed to be given thoughtful consideration.

So it has surprised me to see so many comments on this board that dismiss the possibility of discrimination against Roman Catholics. A frequent statement is that five of the nine Supreme Court justices are Roman Catholic, so this proves no discrimination exists. We all know that African Americans dominate the ranks of professional sports, but few people would say this proves that discrimination against African Americans do not exists. Some might counter that a Supreme Court Justice has more influence than a pro sport champion, but an argument to the contrary could be made if influence was expanded to include the realm of public opinion and attitudes.

Based on my observations of statements about Roman Catholics and their church that have appeared on this board and elsewhere, I would conclude that if no discrimination exists, then there is certainly a lot of smoke for there being no fire.