File talk:State discrimination against humanists, atheists, and the non-religious, according to the International Humanist and Ethical Union organisation.svg

Questions about map

There is also discussion on en:Talk:Discrimination_against_atheists. Jim1138 (talk)
This map was placed on en:Discrimination against atheists, removed, then replaced. I notice that this map shows China in black - "Grave Violations". However, while the IAHU article pg115, states "Grave violations", the text does not suggest discrimination against atheists, only theists (not that being good either). And states CCP members are required to be atheists and are forbidden from engaging in religious practices., suggesting preferential treatment. Shouldn't China be colored differently? Maybe a separate color showing preferential treatment for atheists?

I'm also (being a US Citizen), annoyed by the US color being yellow ("Mostly satisfactory") when it is nearly impossible for an atheist to be elected. Polls showing atheists being distrusted more than most other groups. In one case atheists were more distrusted than pedophiles.

I haven't gone through every entry, but suspect there might be more issues here. For faster response, talk to me on en:user talk:Jim1138 Jim1138 (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The map is based on the report cited above. It lists China as having "grave violations" of religious rights. While members of the ruling party are required to espouse atheism, the actual form of atheism is strictly regulated: witness China's oppression of Falun Gong, which has no position on the existence or non-existence of supernatural beings and can, therefore, be classed as atheist. While the official "religion" of China is atheism, the mandated adherence to authorized expressions of atheism results in discrimination against those atheists who do not adhere to authorized expression.

As for the United States being classed as "mostly satisfactory," the cited reference is pretty clear: variations of religious expression are met with social objections, not legal. There is no law prohibiting a person of a given theological view from holding public office, although there is most certainly a bias among voters. This is markedly different from the situation in China, where a specific, fairly narrow set of beliefs is constitutionally required for ANY position of civic responsibility.

I would say that the map is fine, and presents the findings of the source document accurately and with a neutral point of view. TechBear (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the map does seem to correspond to the report in its labeling. And it's not really our job to pick out what we like/don't like or agree/disagree with concerning the specific findings of the report but rather to determine if the report is a reliable source. So is the problem people have that it's named "Discrimination against atheists by country.svg" and used on the en:Discrimination against atheists page when the report deals with broader categories of "Humanists, Atheists, and the Non-Religious?" Or is the issue that it does not seem to be a reliable source (in which case the image isn't really the issue at hand)? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The report does focus on state sponsored discrimination, not what the overall situation in a particular country is. Australia is rated "Systemic Discrimination", does have discriminatory laws on the books, but has elected a prime minister who is an open atheist: en:Julia_Gillard#Personal life. America is rated "Mostly Satisfactory" and no US President, no US Senator, one? US Representative (Pete Stark), and one? Governor (Jesse Ventura) has ever been an openly elected atheist. List A country could legislate equality to atheists, yet their citizens tear suspected atheists limb from limb: the map color would be green. This disparity, suggests that the map while correct in a narrow setting, is overall useless. Jim1138 (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The source's China entry seems to be a digression. "Atheist" is mentioned once in that "CCP members are required to be atheists". Otherwise, the section only discuses religious discrimination. Nothing mentioned about discrimination regarding atheists. Presumably, since CCP members are required to be atheists, there is no discrimination against atheists. Given the source is about countries' laws discriminating against atheists, I would think the category would lean toward "free and equal", not "grave violations". Not that I applaud these laws... While Buddhist and Falun Gong are, in principle, atheists, they still are a religion. Most who claim to be atheists would state that "Atheism is not a religion". Jim1138 (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so your problem is the reliability of the source, no? Let's consolidate these threads on the article talk page then. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Essentially. Move it to en:Talk:Discrimination_against_atheists. Jim1138 (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)