Agnostic.com

8 10

[friendlyatheist.patheos.com]

This is discrimintation

Larimar 8 Apr 23
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

8 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

They know atheists speak the truth and that is the last thing they want to hear when it comes to their religion.

1

The "show me" state, huh? I got something in my pocket I want to show you. Want to guess what it is? Damn, I hate these bullyboy dickwads, I really do.

2

Fascist asshat!

1

It is often done to protect the children of the plaintiffs. It is clearly designed to intimidate.

2

This won't stand. If it passes, the courts will strike it down.

2

here. this is the article:

Missouri Bill Banning Anonymity of Atheist Plaintiffs in Lawsuits Passes House
BY HEMANT MEHTA
APRIL 10, 2019
A bill that will paint a giant target on atheists’ backs for any Christian vigilante who wants to attack them has just passed the Missouri State House.

A little background here: Whenever a church/state separation lawsuit lists the plaintiffs, it’s not unusual to see initials in place of their real names, if not a pseudonym like “Jane Doe.” That’s for good reason: If their names ever became public, they could be stalked or bullied (or worse) in their communities, many of which are extremely religious, which is why there are church/state separation problems in the first place.

Judges understand this. They may require the plaintiffs to appear before them or use their real names in sealed documents, but they usually allow the people to remain anonymous in the public record if there’s a legitimate reason for it.

Missouri State Rep. Hardy Billington, a Republican Baptist who recently said his goal in office was to “stand up for Christian values,” wants those atheists to suffer.

Billington filed a bill earlier this year, HB 728, that would force adult plaintiffs to use their real names in any cases involving church/state separation… and only in cases involving church/state separation.

Apparently, if you sue over a Ten Commandments monument outside of a public school, everyone needs to know your real name. Not so in other kinds of lawsuits.

Here’s the change he wants to make:

Except if the party in interest is a minor, in any action involving the separation of church and state, such action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.

There is no benefit to the public here. All Billington is doing is creating a new obstacle to deter atheists from coming forward about potentially illegal issues. Those who still go through with it will have to deal with the inevitable Christian backlash.
Why are we treating these plaintiffs different from other ones? Why is church/state separation the one issue in which anonymity is not an option?

When Eric Wells, the Missouri Assistant State Director for American Atheists, spoke in front of the House Judiciary Committee, urging them to reconsider this thoughtless piece of legislation, he offered a long list of atheist plaintiffs who were threatened and faced harassment after bringing forth a lawsuit. (In one famous case from 2000, for example, Wells noted that the “speculation about their identities was so intense that before the trial, the district court judge issued an unusual order specifically instructing the school district’s representatives not to reveal the families’ identities to anyone for any reason and threatening anyone who violated the order with contempt.&rdquo😉

Lawyers from the Freedom From Religion Foundation also testified against the bill, saying that it “arms bullies with a weapon they can turn against Victims” and that it would “replace judicial deference with an inflexible rule that puts real people in danger.”

It’s not just atheists at risk here. Billington would be targeting progressive Christians and members of minority faiths as well.

And yet, on Monday, the Missouri House voted in favor of the bill 101-44. It now moves to the Republican-dominated Senate.

If this bill passes, people could get killed. That’s not hyperbole. Christian threats are very, very real. What’s odd is how that doesn’t seems to be a concern for the “pro-life” Republican insane enough to propose a bill like this.

g

Abhorent! I hope the bill won't be passed. Thank you for taking the time and copying the article

@Vladivosta no problem. i am glad when people do that for me when i've run out of free reads, for example in wapo or nyt (i would subscribe if i could afford it).

g

2

i like patheos well enough to click but many people are shy about clicking various links. could you summarize for those at least trying to decide whether or not to go to the article?

g

@LetzGetReal and obviously i was able to do that too, and i said i liked patheos. not everyone is familiar with it and not everyone feels comfortable clicking strange links. posting links without a comment that gives a clue what is IN the article would give me pause were i not already familiar with that site; i still would have appreciated knowing in advance whether the topic was of interest to me (it was, as it happens). i cannot be alone in feeling that way.

g

1

Seems fishy.

I haven't found any other on line media that has mentioned it.

@Elganned The Fox news site doesn’t mention pending legislation to out atheists. Instead it cited a court case in which the state funds a church playground group.

Riverfront Times is a small local newspaper. Having worked on small local newspapers, I know it’s common for them to accept press releases rather than hire reporters to check out the news release.

The Springfield News does mention a bill like you mention has been introduced.

Want a cookie? ??

@Elganned If you want that kind of cookie . . .

@WonderWartHog99 Wasn't saying the article seemed in doubt. Was more talking at motive, with a very loose association with the symbolic fish.

@itsmedammit Was more talking at motive, with a very loose association with the symbolic fish.

I thought this place was the symbolic fish fry.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:336475
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.