Are Athiests persecuted in the US?

[OnceConvinced]

A while ago, I watched an episode of Trading Spouses where a Christian switched with an Athiest. The Athiest claimed that in the States, many athiests are persecuted by Christians due to their beliefs... or lack there of.

Do you agree with this?

[Confused]

When was the last time an out-of-the closet atheist was elected to the Presidency, Senate, House or State Governorship?

Governor Jesse Ventura.

Thanks.

Non-Christian Religious Affiliation of U.S. Presidents:

• Unitarian 9.5%

Non-Christian Religious Affiliation of U.S. Congress:

• Jewish 6.9%
• Scientologist 0.2%
• unspecified 0.7%

Non-Christian Religious Affiliation of U.S. Governors :

• Jewish 4%
• not stated 2% (this must be Jesse Ventura)

Non-Christian Religious Affiliation of the U.S. Supreme Court: None

Non-Christian Religious Affiliation of Canadian Prime Ministers: None

I think that it is safe to put forward the conjecture that non-theists are grossly underrepresented in elected western governments.

I am curious, do you know who the Unitarian represented is? Being A Unitarian Universalist doesn't exclude the possibility that they are Non-Christian. Nor can one tell if they are non-religious or religious by simply declaring UU.

[Confused]

A while ago, I watched an episode of Trading Spouses where a Christian switched with an Athiest. The Athiest claimed that in the States, many athiests are persecuted by Christians due to their beliefs... or lack there of.

Do you agree with this?

Atheists have only themselves to blame. There is no lobbying for representation. There has only recently been public awareness of what an atheist really is, and even that is hazy. according to a recent study done by the University of Minnesota Department of Sociology, atheists are "seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public."

http://baerwcb.tripod.com/Binder/atheists.html

According to the study, 39.6% of respondents listed Atheists, well ahead of Muslims (26.3%); Homosexuals (22.6%); and Jews (7.6%) when asked to identify the group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society." Conservative Christians drew a negative response from 13.5% of those surveyed, slightly ahead of recent immigrants at 12.5%.

The researchers at the university did say that tolerance levels of non-mainstream groups have gone up, but tolerance for atheists has increased minimally, and there hasn't been much improvement over the last 50 years. This may because atheists are viewed in one of two general ways, according to the study.

"Some people view atheists as problematic because they associate them with illegality, such as drug use and prostitution -- that is, with immoral people who threaten respectable community from the lower end of the social hierarchy." Presumably, this might be rooted in the claim that only religion can provide an authentic moral compass, and that without a deity (and the presumed punishment in an afterlife), people have little to lose by engaging in certain immoral, sinful behaviors."

"Others saw atheists as rampant materialists and cultural elitists that threaten common values from above -- the ostentatiously wealthy who make a lifestyle out of consumption or the cultural elites who think they know better than everyone else." In both cases, atheists are perceived as "self interested individuals who are not concerned with a common good."

This kind of stereotyping of a minority group is not uncommon. The United States was founded on the principle of "all men are created equal," a phrase coined by white, land-owning men who allowed citizens to vote only if they were white, land-owning males, and viewed women and African-Americans as inferior. Women did not vote in a Presidential election until 1920, 144 years after the country was founded. Similarly, African-Americans were only counted as three-fifths of a whole person when the "Three-Fifths Compromise" was passed in 1787, which created a compromise between Northerners and Southerners regarding the counting of slaves in determining representation in the House of Representatives. African-Americans didn't get the right to vote until 1870.

African-Americans didn't have a representative in the House until 1870, when Joseph Rainey of South Carolina was seated and subsequently re-elected four times. Women did not get a representative until 1916, when Jeannette Rankin was elected to represent the state of Montana.

To this day, there has not been one atheist or agnostic Congressperson representing the United States of America. Even homosexuals, another vilified group in this country, have had representatives in Congress (former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, for example), though they may not have ran with the public knowledge of their homosexuality. The lack of godless representatives makes literal the phrase, "taxation without representation."

There are even groups in athletics representing the different religions, such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, but none for atheist athletes.

Women gained the right to vote by being integral contributors to the success of the United States during and after World War I, and African-Americans gained their right to vote when the Civil War ended and the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified. In each case, it took a war for the oppressed groups to first become able to vote, and then to run for public office.

For atheists to gain representation, they need not a war, but tolerance from the religious sects of the United States. Atheists, like African-Americans and women, are people just like everyone else, and any negative stereotypes you hold them to are probably wrong. To make a blanket statement that atheists are without morals is not only wrong in principle, but wrong factually, as well. Atheists and agnostics make up 8-10% of the United States population of a whole, but only 1% of the prison population.

It has been 230 years since this nation was founded. It is about time the godless get a representative in Congress. Atheists have always had the right to vote, but never anyone to vote for. The United States of America, which prides itself on being the most culturally diverse country on the planet, has left the atheist section of the country out in the cold. Atheist representation, though, does not come from up top; rather, it comes from the middle -- the voters and those they vote for.

Education of High School or less: 92% were certain or had little doubt God exists
Education of Some College: 90% were certain or had little doubt God exists
Education of College Graduate: 85% were certain or had little doubt God exists
Education of Post Graduate: 77% were certain or had little doubt God exists

2005-2006 Source: Galluppoll.com (registration required).
While Democrats and Republicans, seemingly the only two parties in the American political system, disagree on a number of issues, the one thing they can both agree on is that being openly atheist is a death wish for a run at public office, especially for those running for public office in the Bible Belt, which includes Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Florida, and everything in between (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Furthermore, Gallup research claims "close to half of Americans -- 48% -- unwilling to support an atheist for president while 49% say they would." In contrast, only 30% of people in 1958 were willing to vote for an African-American for public office, but now over 90% (as of 1999) would vote for an African-American.

Non-religious representation in government would have some great effects in America from the change in perspective alone. For example, religious people who believe in an afterlife would be more willing to sacrifice the future in favor of the comfort of the present. This is most prominently exemplified by President Bush's claim that God told him to invade Iraq. Of course, there were many other contributing factors to the invasion and eventual toppling of the Hussein regime in Iraq, but diplomacy would have been a much more utilized tool with a godless President.

In addition, Gallup polls show a correlation between doubt in the existence of a supernatural being and education, where 92% of people who have at most a high school-level education believe in God, as compared to 77% who are post-graduate.

The 41st President of the United States, George H. W. Bush, once said, "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

It is time for atheists to remove the negative stigma attached to them and end 230 years without representation.

IMHO, it isn't that atheists are persecuted, rather atheists keep themselves in the dark and as a result, they have no representation.

Of all the atheists on this forum, how many would agree, 100%, with the stereotype Dawkins presents for atheism?

And Sam Harris?

Can atheists really even agree on anything enough in the US to rally for representation. It is hard to present yourself as a coalition if there is much dissent within the coalition.

[byofrcs]

A while ago, I watched an episode of Trading Spouses where a Christian switched with an Athiest. The Athiest claimed that in the States, many athiests are persecuted by Christians due to their beliefs... or lack there of.

Do you agree with this?

I had to laugh given this is about persecution and you didn't spell "Atheist" right !.
I think that kind of answers the poll question.

[Skeptic]

Atheists have only themselves to blame. There is no lobbying for representation. There has only recently been public awareness of what an atheist really is, and even that is hazy. according to a recent study done by the University of Minnesota Department of Sociology, atheists are "seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public."


IMHO, it isn't that atheists are persecuted, rather atheists keep themselves in the dark and as a result, they have no representation.

Of all the atheists on this forum, how many would agree, 100%, with the stereotype Dawkins presents for atheism?

And Sam Harris?

Can atheists really even agree on anything enough in the US to rally for representation. It is hard to present yourself as a coalition if there is much dissent within the coalition.

It is because Atheists are not a unified group. Lack of belief isnt necessarily a unifying theme. Because we agree that there is no God doesnt not mean that we all have similar world views. I think intentional exclusion comes with accepting that one is an atheist.

[Beto]

Doesn't the US president alienate atheists at the end of every speech? Any impressionable Christian will naturally have amplified ill-feelings towards atheists, inevitably resulting in persecution.

Atheists need representation now? Do law abiding citizens need representation against the criminals, or are there simply laws to protect them?

Secular countries recognize atheists right be atheists. The president as a man can be whatever he wants (many portuguese presidents have made clear that they were Christians) but the presidency has no religion, in order to be able to represent everyone. How is this not the only logical choice in the 21st century?

[dmart]

Hmmm, if you mean persecuted as in not voting for an atheist based on them being atheist, then yes you can consider it persecution, but I also believe that in the United States when you vote, you vote for someone that represents you best, thus in a way we are encouraged to persecute people.

Although my take of persecution is a more physical attack against atheists and in that respect no I do not think they are persecuted as a whole, by a whole. Maybe by extremists, but every group is persecuted by extremists.

[Cmass]

Confused wrote:

Atheists have only themselves to blame. There is no lobbying for representation. There has only recently been public awareness of what an atheist really is, and even that is hazy. according to a recent study done by the University of Minnesota Department of Sociology, atheists are "seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public."

I think recently Atheists have on themselves to blame. But no historically.
We definitely need some form of structure that we can hang our hats on. And within that structure we first need to ask ourself what we want to achieve and how do we go implementing it.
So, what does it mean to be an Atheist? Is there anything beyond a shared lack of belief? I personally think there is and it is related to the application of rational logic arguments as well as free thinking and pursuit of knowledge through the scientific method. We need to determine define and agree upon some shared characteristics that will bind us together. With that, we can work together - to make certain political changes a reality.

[Cephus]

No, there isn't anything beyond a lack of belief, that's the point. Atheism is a position on a single issue, nothing more. We do not and should not want more than that because that does make us a "religion" or a "party" and that's ultimately harmful.

We are getting more powerful as a potential voting block though, we went from 7% of the population in the 1990 census to 14% in 2000 and hopefully we might break 20% in 2010. While that doesn't guarantee we'll be catered to by politicians since we aren't a unified block by any means, hopefully the whack-job fundamentalists will start getting knocked out of the primaries and the parties will stop whoring to the religious right so openly for fear of offending 1/5th of the voters in this country.

We can always hope.

[Confused]

Atheists have only themselves to blame. There is no lobbying for representation. There has only recently been public awareness of what an atheist really is, and even that is hazy. according to a recent study done by the University of Minnesota Department of Sociology, atheists are "seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public."


IMHO, it isn't that atheists are persecuted, rather atheists keep themselves in the dark and as a result, they have no representation.

Of all the atheists on this forum, how many would agree, 100%, with the stereotype Dawkins presents for atheism?

And Sam Harris?

Can atheists really even agree on anything enough in the US to rally for representation. It is hard to present yourself as a coalition if there is much dissent within the coalition.

It is because Atheists are not a unified group. Lack of belief isnt necessarily a unifying theme. Because we agree that there is no God doesnt not mean that we all have similar world views. I think intentional exclusion comes with accepting that one is an atheist.

Now, try explaining what you have just written to the average US citizen. You will get blank stares most likely.

[Confused]

Confused wrote:

Atheists have only themselves to blame. There is no lobbying for representation. There has only recently been public awareness of what an atheist really is, and even that is hazy. according to a recent study done by the University of Minnesota Department of Sociology, atheists are "seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public."

I think recently Atheists have on themselves to blame. But no historically.
We definitely need some form of structure that we can hang our hats on. And within that structure we first need to ask ourself what we want to achieve and how do we go implementing it.
So, what does it mean to be an Atheist? Is there anything beyond a shared lack of belief? I personally think there is and it is related to the application of rational logic arguments as well as free thinking and pursuit of knowledge through the scientific method. We need to determine define and agree upon some shared characteristics that will bind us together. With that, we can work together - to make certain political changes a reality.

You make some key points here Cmass. I would wonder at one glitch however. We currently crucify the political system for the inclusion of some religious power within its structure. Now, if we were to gather as a "coalition" would we not be trying to influence the political system with the lack of religious power within its political structure? Would we end up being just as guilty as religious organizations for their "political clout" on candidates and elections? I understand the separation of church and state. And just like capitalism, it is a good utopian concept. But in reality "pure capitalism" cannot exist. In reality, politics can be influenced by religious or non-religious organizations. And I don't see how one is any better than the other in the grand scheme of things. Just as if religion gained to much power again (and we already know the results of this), what would happen if the non-religious gained to much power?

The bottom line is that political change shouldn't be influenced by religious dogma nor the absence of religious dogma. It should be influenced by the people and for the people. Unfortunately, there are so many special groups contributing to campaigns that the representation isn't often reflective of the people, rather, it reflect those with power.