I think over the next few decades, there will be much less discrimination against Atheists (here in the USA). From statistics I've seen and IRL experience in both the South and North USA, more and more young people (teens into thirties) identify as Atheists, agnostics, or other forms of non-establishment religions (like the somewhat vague "I am Spiritual").
Also, I am always kind of doubtful about studies that give the percentage of people who identify themselves as various religions, since I know MANY people who claim to be Catholic, Jewish, etc. but who don't actually practice the religion, go to services, read the holy book at home, etc. For some reason, maybe it's cultural or some leftovers of ingrained beliefs, they just mark X next to that religion on forms. So, overall, I think the amount of people who actually practice religion in the USA is somewhat lower than it appears in surveys.
I feel very confident that within my lifetime, assuming I live an average lifespan, there will be a sizable number of out-and-proud atheists in Congress, and at least a serious Presidential contender. Once the older and more conservative folks start dying out and the younger generations start voting (including NON-presidential elections and in local elections), you'll probably see religion playing less of a role, especially in states outside of the Bible Belt.
I also really wouldn't be surprised if within the next few decades that there's some sort of active movement among Atheists to elect non-religious politicians (kind of like how some people are actively trying to get Hilary into office through making the pac Ready for Hilary, because some really want a woman president), since given the general sentiment I've picked up on this board that quite a few atheists think that all non-Atheists are stupid and purposely ignorant, so why would you want a President who you think is stupid. I do think Atheists should be more vocal politically, ultra-Christian groups are powerful because they have high concentrations within certain areas and they're LOUD (and, who are the most reliable voters? Old white people. So for now, yeah, politicans are going to try to please this demographics, since young people (more likely to be Atheist) don't vote regularly). Maybe if all the Atheists in Boston, Silicon Valley, and other places where many Atheists live would form more political organizations that back Atheist candidates, and
actually vote, there'd be more willingness among politicians to not feel the need to lie to the public by claiming to be religious.
Onto the article, this part kind of caught my attention more:
QuoteOver the past few decades, there have been many documented cases of judges either denying parents custody rights because of their apparent disinterest in organized religion, or in other cases, of atheist parents being ordered to attend church so that their children can undergo "systematic spiritual training."
In 2006, an atheist father emailed The Dish columnist Andrew Sullivan to describe a custody battle that had seen his Sunday visitation rights revoked so that his son could receive "religious instruction" under his ex-wife's supervision. The case took place in Mississippi, and the father said that he feared he would only lose more ground if he challenged the religious judge's ruling.
While I certainly do not think it's right to force people to attend church, I don't have a problem with making parents drop kids off at church as part of a custody arrangement. For younger kids, you may need to actually go inside which I do see as being more problematic. Part of the problem I had with the above quote, is that the statements are quite vague and don't present the full picture. Custody battles are extremely difficult since the judge needs to look at the "best interest of the child" (and yes, I actually did read the entire law review article the quote linked to, which I doubt many readers of the article actually did). I don't think an Atheist parent should be penalized or discriminated against for lack of belief, but the whole thing about having a custody order where one parent needs to bring their kid to services applies to even religious parents (like the law review article cited a case where a mother wasn't allowed to bring her kid to Catholic Mass since the custody arrangement said the child was to be raised Jewish).
I have seen cases which I do agree with the judge making a parent bring kids to services, since you do need to balance the interests and rights of both parents to have a say in their children's lives. You also need to consider what a child wants as well, like if a child identifies as and likes being a member of Religion X, I think it would be a little unfair to the child if s/he cannot attend services and being part of a community that they enjoy while they're living with one of their parents over summer vacation (or whenever) because one of their parents doesn't want to drop them off once a week or so for a few hours. I do agree with the law review article that telling a parent that s/he cannot make certain statements against the religion the children are being raised as is likely a Constitutional issue, but I don't see much problem with a parent dropping their kid off at a church or temple, and then saying "yeah, I am atheist which means
blank ."
Judges often look to the conduct of the marriage, so if you've been married and during that time one spouse always took the kids to church and you allowed it, then the judge is more likely to allow the tradition of bringing the kids to church to continue.
Anyways, while there can be a lot of room for discrimination when doing custody agreements, custody agreements are way too complex to sum up in just three sentences like the article did (or a few short paragraphs like I did here).
