Is there a place for atheists in America?

http://www.news-record.com/content/2009 ... in_america

Sunday, June 28, 2009

By TOM ARCARO

Ten years ago, few Americans would have thought an African American could be elected president of the United States. Which will be the next minority group to gain this highest level of acceptance?

Will we have an openly gay president?

A Muslim president?

How about an atheist president?

In 2006, a University of Minnesota study found that atheists are the least trusted among several categories. In that study, some 40 percent of Americans said of atheists, "This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society."

Compare this number to other groups that often experience discrimination, such as Muslims who were next at 26 percent, and gays just after that at 23 percent.

Yet, a recent survey by Trinity College in Connecticut found that 15 percent of Americans claim they adhere to no religion, making them the fastest growing group of believers -- or, rather, nonbelievers -- in the United States.

The American Religious Identification Survey also found that the number of people who self-identify as "nonreligious" is growing in every state.

With the nonreligious far outnumbering Jews and Muslims, and pulling roughly even with Episcopalians, one would assume acceptance in American society.

Atheism is trendy in entertainment.

On television, we have Dr. Gregory House, played by Hugh Laurie in the Fox drama "House," and HBO pundit and "Religulous" filmmaker Bill Maher.

We hear about major authors that the public associates with atheism -- Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens.

But where are the voices of the "everyday" atheist?

Research I conducted last fall uncovered some unsettling trends. More than 8,200 atheists from around the globe completed a survey to share examples of the stigma they encounter after they tell family and friends of their views.

A general consensus can be found in the words of one man: "People have believed that I don't have a sense of morality because I don't believe in God."

Respondents feel mistrusted and, in many cases, feel compelled to hide their unbelief. They are your plumber, the nurse who checks your blood pressure, the mechanic who fixes your car, the soldier fighting in Iraq and the pilot who lands your plane.

The stigma rears its head everywhere in America. In one woman's words: "I was asked by a religious acquaintance about my church-going habits. When I told her about my atheism she was shocked and angry. She started to berate me about the importance of church and the fact that I was condemning my children to Hell."

Preliminary data also show that professing one's nonbeliefs in the public realm is potentially harmful. Some states have laws that ban atheists from public office, as survey takers pointed out, while others expressed fear that sharing their views would damage their livelihood.

Atheists represent the last social or religious group where stigmatization is accepted. Unlike stereotypical attacks on women, minorities and homosexuals, it seems that very few public figures stand up for the rights of the nonreligious.

In his Inauguration address, President Barack Obama made specific mention that this is also a nation of "nonbelievers," a sign that everyone should have a seat at the table of public discourse where ideas can be freely exchanged without fear of hostility or hatred.

As one of those "nonbelievers," this inclusion afforded me some hope for a United States where someday atheists will be free from stigma.

My survey is imperfect, and more research must be done. The goal of the "Coming Out as an Atheist" study is to add to the ongoing national conversation about religion and its role in our society.

Just as three decades ago people may have said, "I don't know any gay people," because most were in the closet, many Americans now believe that they don't know any atheists when indeed the person sitting next to them on the bus -- or, maybe, in the pew -- does not believe in God.



The writer teaches in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Elon University. He also directs Project Pericles at Elon, an initiative that aims to "instill in students an abiding and active sense of social responsibility and civic concern."

I think there have probably been several atheist, or at the least, non-religious presidents.

I look forward to a time when the non-religious express their views in open forum without fear of knee-jerk reactionism.

The authors of our founding documents were largely non-religious, leaning toward atheist and i would say they did a fair job.

Thomas Jefferson, especially, has some choice comments about christianity.

I just noticed your signature! LOL

I really dislike this focus on electing minorities into office. We're supposed to be picking people to run our country. This isn't something relatively petty like employee of the month or whatever.

If we were talking about policy when we decided our candidates in the two major parties, the election would've been Kucinich v. Paul, not Obama v. McCain.

Doesn't matter if you dislike one of their policies, but those two had the most focus on policy and political ideology in their campaigns bar none. Instead, the Democratic primary was about figuring out if the Democrats wanted a black man or a white woman, and the Republican primary was about who served in the military longest. It was ridiculous, and I found it really irritating knowing that this is how we decide who runs our country.

I know this is only somewhat on topic, but this focus on electing minorities drives me crackers. It is inappropriate to treat political office as an opportunity to make affirmative action elects. It is inappropriate to treat political office like it's little more than a military promotion.

I agree there is a bit too much focus on electability over content.

I am not arguing we should elect an atheist over a religious person just based on their belief, in fact i am arguing the opposite.

Elect a qualified atheist over an un-qualified theist. and vice versa.

follow?

Fair enough, man.

Just saying, though, there seems to be this strange presumption that theists are irrational in all ways because they are irrational in one. In their defense, I've seem some pretty loopy atheists and some pretty pragmatic theists, so religiosity, in itself, really has no bearing on someone's ability to do a good job at anything.

This isn't to say that there aren't any loopy religious people that want to base their political decisions on tea leaves, but that disqualifies them based on their lack of utility, not their religiosity.

To illustrate the point, I will take a grouchy, incontinent old Irish Catholic with feet firmly planted on Earth than a Nietzsche wannabe atheist who couldn't come up with a practical solution to anything because his pedantic observation of grammar errors in CIA reports renders him unable to comprehend what he's reading.

I would thoroughly agree with you there.

Do you really believe that? The advantage of atheism is its focus on evidence and rationality. The secret of the hidden atheism of the founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson was that the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence were based on the ideas of the scientific enlightenment rather than religious belief. Having an atheist president would encourage debate about religion.

The irony in this post about atheists being persecuted in America is that in fact the mainstream scientific and economic culture is implicitly atheist in many ways. I bet atheists are on average richer and smarter than believers.

Atheism isn't based on anything other than a lack of explicit belief in God. In fact, some religious beliefs such as that Tarot cards actually reveal the future and reincarnation are not contingent upon belief in a God, meaning they are atheistic beliefs (beliefs without a God), and simultaneously are not founded in any way on any kind of evidence at all, period.

I think your point of view borderlines on what's sometimes called "militant atheism."

FYI... RT is a rare breed... he is a Christian atheist!

You will have to get him to elaborate on the definition... I do not understand it fully myself.

Later

Macai: "Atheism isn't based on anything other than a lack of explicit belief in God."

That's a position I defend as well, but keep in mind atheism wouldn't exist without theism. A person not exposed to theism would be an atheist in the purest sense. Most people have been exposed to it, of course, so the position gains character based on counter arguments to the theistic stance. With the ubiquity of theism, reasons to not believe define the atheist. Those aren't beliefs in themselves, they are reasons and types of reasoning. Having a replacement superstitious belief without a deity breaks the typical mold, but categorization here is provisional anyway.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but you just contradicted yourself. If atheism can't exist without theism, then someone who has never been introduced to the concept of theism is not an atheist. This is obviously not the case.

No contradiction. Just because someone is not introduced to a concept does not mean that concept doesn't exist. Bad logic.