The sanest city in the U.S.

April 3, 2015 • 4:15 pm

Fill in the blank:

In what is believed to be a first in the United States, the Common Council of _________ has voted to amend the city’s equal opportunities ordinance “to add nonreligion as a protected class.”

The legislation adds atheists to the categories of people who could potentially face discrimination. It was co-sponsored by 14 of the council’s 20 members and approved without objection Tuesday night.

Atheism is defined in the ordinance as “the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.”

If you know the answer, DO NOT put it in the comments. If you don’t, guess. Helpful hint: It’s not in the South.

Hint #2: the city hosts a famous secular organization.

This link will tell you the answer.

 

65 thoughts on “The sanest city in the U.S.”

    1. That’s my guess too. The hint influenced my choice, but as a former Wisconsinite I always loved Madison’s progressive atmosphere. Hope it is the right guess!

    2. Haven’t looked but that’s my guess as well. If so, I wish it would extend to other cities in Wisconsin.

      Several years ago in Wisconsin I got turned away from two local print shops when I went in to have some posters made for an atheist event being held out-of-state. The owners explained that, as Christians, doing work on/for atheism went against their beliefs. I protested that the posters themselves were neutral in that they didn’t even mention religion. But they promoted atheism, I was sadly informed. So sorry, they smiled. They were Christian.

      Smug privileged bigots. By the way, Office Max did the job with no problem: they were puzzled and bothered that I’d been turned down elsewhere.

  2. Sub (I looked at the answer because I hate not knowing things. This is why I’m hell on people hiding gifts for me).

      1. I enjoyed the latest WD season; I get email spoilers and delete them before they get the better of me. Yay Morgan!!!

          1. Carol and I would be friends in the apocalypse but I think she could be a bad influence. I’d probably convince too many people to “look at the flowers”.

        1. It’s funny, but when I see Norman Reedus on other shows (Jimmy Fallon, Talking Dead) he still has a bit of greasy “needs to take a shower” look. I find that endearing, though this thread made me lol+!

    1. Since I live near there, I was hoping it was Seattle as well! But I guess it isn’t 🙁

    3. Seattleite here, and I’ve never heard the City Council called anything but “the Seattle City Council”, certainly not “the Common Council of Seattle”. So I figured it had to be some other state where the conventions are different. New England seemed like a good guess, until I peeked.

  5. I was able to guess correctly — even afore my eyeballs arrived at Dr Coyne’s penultimate sentence re this specific city’s being the one of a “famous secular organization.”

    And, in my thinking, likely these citizens’ sanity is in gargantuan part .due. to the tireless and dauntless efforts of this woman, http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Nicol_Gaylor, and at least one of her four children, this woman, http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Laurie_Gaylor.

    Blue

  6. What’s insane is having “protected classes.” There is no end to that, and hell to pay trying to know if someone is “in” one of those classes before you say/do something offensive in front of them.

    The answer is that which cuts the problem down to size: The smallest minority is the individual.

    1. Thou art, I fear, a prophet without honour, a lone voice in the wilderness. Verily, I say unto thee, thou shalt have no followers with this attitude. Bless you, my son.

      1. Ha! Thanks. I appreciate the shout out. I know my position has little traction.

        You know, I found this:
        “The legislature of the United States shall pass no law on the subject of religion”
        See how that is different? Without the power to enforce religious strictures, the destruction of theism becomes strictly part of the marketplace of ideas, and it can win. It can.
        This was said by Charles Pinckney, a Founder of the U.S. who had this approach: simply forbid THE GOVERNMENT from mentioning it. The Government cannot make laws about ideas or groups. He had an entire “plan” to forward the idea,
        http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qpinck.htm

        Government must make only laws that protect individuals. Similarly, government shall pass no law, nor mention race, sex, thought, sexual orientation, etc.” This is far more powerful than picking off one bigotry at a time.

  8. Wouldn’t they do better to extend the protected class to include everything not dead. One exception might be the current governor.

  12. If you were a member of that “famous secular organization” (like me), you’d have gotten an email from them which related this happy happening, and you wouldn’t have to guess.

  14. I’m guessing Seattle. I really don’t know much about Seattle, just coffee & Grunge, but it sounds like something that could come echoing out of the Cascades.

        1. They’ve got one called the Fog Lifter. I understand coffee is essential for driving and operating machinery when the air becomes saturated.

  16. Let’s take it one more step and nominate the next five cities to follow suit. With a prize for a perfect score.

    I’ll contribute Portland (yes, the left coast one), Austin, Cambridge, Berkeley, and my home base, Evanston.

    Let the race begin.

  17. I wad thinking Rochester and the Center for Free Inquiry. What is the Madison organization?

    1. The Madison group is the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).

      Were you referring to the New York Rochester or the Minnesota Rochester?

  19. I say Buffalo, NY, what with the Center for Inquiry. At least it’s “famous” to me. 😉

    1. Actually… true fact… I was born across the street from the location of the famous referenced secular organization.

        2. “True facts are no longer the standard. It has to be an absolutely true fact.”
          Uh-oh, According to the Belief System Industry(TM), that would mean that it was written in the[sic] Bible. You forgot to qualify it with “as defined by rational people”.

  21. I have been a member of FFRF since 1989 and taken Freethought Today since then, so I was sure it must be Madison,Wisconsin. They have over 21,500 and just increase their building space by 400%. One of Wisconsin Freethought Hall from the 1800’s!

  22. I was sure it must be Madison, Wisconsin because of the Freedom From Religion Foundation . I have been a member since ??1989 and their paper “Freethoght Today”. They just expanded their building by a 400% addition.

  23. I know the answer because I went to grad school and med school in this most rational of cities. Mad Town ftw!

  24. I’m proud to say, the whole of New Zealand:

    Human Rights Act 1993

    21 Prohibited grounds of discrimination

    (1) For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are—

    (c) religious belief:

    (d) ethical belief, which means the lack of a religious belief, whether in respect of a particular religion or religions or all religions:

    1. True but it doesn’t stop the the Human Rights Review Tribunal from coming out with decisions requiring others to ‘accommodate’ religious beliefs. Sky fairy says don’t work Saturday-employer can tell everyone else to work more often as their objections, says said Tribunal, don’t count. Most forms of discrimination are avoided by not doing it, that is don’t decline service to women, with religion everyone else is expected to positively adapt to accommodate whatever belief they have taken up.

      1. I should add that of course in the case of disability there is a reasonable accommodation requirement.

      2. See my post #6 above. If the government is forbidden to mention religion in any law, it would not have the power to enforce any “accomodation” of it.

        1. I don’t think the NZ government is forbidden to mention religion in any law. However, if someone refused to work Saturday on account of religious belief, it is likely that any employment tribunal would rule that they should make up the time at some other time, and that if other staff had to work extra hours or extra duties to ‘cover’ for the absentee they should be paid accordingly.

          1. Hi, what I meant in my theoretical was this:
            all rule-making, tribunal, etc which are acting as the law.

            In your example the tribunal would not be allowed to discuss or consider religion, let alone make an exception for it.

  25. Since I get notifications by email and my mailreader (Kmail) is set to ‘text’ then “This link ( http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/01/396856409/XXXXXXX**-council-votes-to-ban-discrimination-against-atheism ) will tell you the answer.” was kind of a dead giveaway. (** obfuscated by me). As was mousing over “This link” on this webpage in my browser …

    Sort of makes “do not put the answer in the comments” kind of superfluous.

Comments are closed.