Atheists the Most Hated and Distrusted Minority in America?

[LAGC]

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/

Intolerance is a bitter beast. There are many groups in America that are subject to discrimination and prejudice, but none are more hated than atheists. Research conducted a couple years ago at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis found that atheists are more distrusted than Muslims or homosexuals in the US.

Austin Cline from about.com writes, “Every single study that has ever looked at the issue has revealed massive amounts of bigotry and prejudice against atheists in America. The most recent data shows that atheists are more distrusted and despised than any other minority and that an atheist is the least likely person that Americans would vote for in a presidential election. It’s not just that atheists are hated, though, but also that atheists seem to represent everything about modernity which Americans dislike or fear.

The most recent study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, which found that atheists ranked lower than “Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in ’sharing their vision of American society.’ Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.”

Makes you wonder if we'll ever see an atheist President of the United States?

[ProudDad]

1. Indeed.

That's why we "choose" that lifestyle...

It's MUCH more fun to be hated and mistrusted than to be living in a tolerant society...

It's too late thought, I've already married (and divorced) 2 non-atheists DAUGHTERS!!!

OOOOOOH!!!!

Boogada-boogada-boogada...me so scary!!!!!!

How can we ever see an honest pResident in a hypocritical country?

[jrose1292]

165. ha!

you couldn't have put that any better!i personally do not
believe in a deity and i think people need to stop
discriminating the "non-believers". people are all
"lets be tolerant" yet they are not towards
athiests.HYPOCRITES!

[sakabatou]

2. This was also mentioned in Dawkin's, "The God Delusion"

[MrModerate]

3. The problem about polls like this is that they compare *being* something

like being black or being gay with *not being* something -- specifically, religious. And the two are not really on the same playing field.

Regardless of the intensity of Amurrica's hate for atheists (which I frankly think is overstated), it's not that much of a burden to bear. That which you don't believe in, you don't especially care about. Add to that the fact that many people who profess faith are flat out lying because they're trying to fit in with their tribe -- and everybody knows that such hypocrisy is coin of the realm -- well, then the US's love affair with sky god fairy stories becomes substantially less important, at least to this atheist.

I still get to shake my head in mock-serious rue when I hear someone spouting religious nonsense, and since I have about as much interest in a person's religion as I do in their favorite baseball team, it ultimately doesn't matter to me.

When people use religion as an excuse for wicked behavior, then that changes everything. But even there, people are quite capable of being wicked to each other, even without the goad of religion.

[Juche]

4. Meh

I'll live

[MajorChode]

5. We've already had an atheist president

Richard Nixon was listed as a Quaker, but obviously wasn't. Although he never professed to being an atheist, I'm sure his beliefs were pretty much non-existent.

[Ken Burch]

8. Judged by their actions in office, MOST of our presidents were athiests, then.

Lincoln, FDR and LBJ(on a GOOD day)were about the only ones who made good guesses as to "What Jesus Would Do".
Carter, too, now and again(though more so as an ex-president).

[Silent3]

31. What does the WWJD question have to do...

...with whether someone is an atheist or not? Is in your contention that if a President (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't act in what you consider to be sufficiently "Christian" manner, that shows they must be a secret atheist?

[Ken Burch]

50. It was a comment on the fact that our leaders almost ALWAYS

Wrap themselves in public demonstrations of their alleged Christianity, when in fact their actions showed a lack of core values or convictions(at least positive ones). This is very different from the value systems of most athiests, many of whom have shown themselves to be far more moral than any of the self-described "pious".

No slight to atheists(or anyone of a non-Christian faith community) was intended.

[PassingFair]

93. There is PLENTY of evidence to suggest that Lincoln WAS an atheist.

People seldom "came out" about their
lack of faith before the 20th century.

Considering you could literally lose
your head over it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aikenhead

[Ken Burch]

143. Well, Abe probably was an athiest

Which makes it more damning to the supposedly "pious" that his actions were more "Christian" then theirs(certainly, for example, than every "churchgoing" president who ever enforced the Fugitive Slave Law.)

[charlie]

10. I don't think so

He was a classic religious neurotic. With little regard for religion on his best days and terrified it was all too real on his worst. Remember, he was the guy who got Henry Freakin' Kissinger (now, that's one who's likely an atheist) on his knees for weepy prayer in the Oval Office. His mother was devout, but considered public piety unseemly, which may be why Dick didn't wear his religion on his sleeve. He did confide to K that he prayed nightly before retiring. He was a bastard whose behavior wasn't remotely like a good Quaker, but I don't think he ever shook off his mother's religious influence.

Though they probably weren't, I think Lincoln and Jefferson were more likely atheists than Nixon.

[MajorChode]

21. If Nixon made any show of religion I suspect it was for that reason alone

It would have been political suicide for him to even be perceived as an atheist, especially during war time.

I can't buy that Jefferson was an atheist simply because he spent a huge amount of time thinking and writing about the subject all throughout his life. He once wrote that God spoke to man through the natural order of science and mathematics, so the study of such things brought one closer to Him. Jefferson was almost certainly a Deist or at the very least he believed in much of the dogma of Deism.

[PassingFair]

94. Jefferson didn't worship any deity. In modern terminology, that would have made him an atheist...

or at most, agnostic.

[jgraz]

6. I think Republicans just edged us out for the title.

[pennylane100]

7. Now we need a survey on how many people have been killed

in religious wars versus how many were killed fighting in atheist wars. That would shut them up.

[IDFbunny]

9. Well at least ing the 20th Century

Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Che, among others. Hitler was a Pagan.

[PVnRT]

11. Sigh....

Hitler was not a pagan. He replaced "Germany" for "God." In fact, freethinkers in Germany were amongst his early targets for imprisonment and execution.

Stalin executed everyone; religion had nothing to do with it. Nor did he ever start a war in the name of atheism. In fact, none of them did.

Of course, to expect that this idiotic meme will stop being used is silly, since so many people in this country are deluded into believing it, and would rather trot it out than accept criticism of their faith.

[kwassa]

17. Not starting a war in the name of atheism does not mean they weren't atheists.

It is not a silly meme at all. Athiests killed hundreds of millions, whether they did in the name of atheism or not. They often persecuted and murdered religious people as part of that.

The silly meme is that the death toll in religious wars is greater than any other, which is false, of course. It keeps popping up over and over again, though, simply as a way to bash religion, a common sport around here.

[PVnRT]

20. Then, by your logic,

Christians who have started wars and killed millions fall under the same heading. But, no, we can't mention that, that makes us "religion bashers" and "bigots."

They often persecuted and murdered religious people as part of that.

So have Christians, Muslims and Jews. Very effectively, I might add.

a way to bash religion, a common sport around here.

Any time religion is "bashed" around here, twice as many people pipe in to defend it. Spare me your persecution complex.

[IDFbunny]

27. Athiests are just as inclined to intolerance

Atheists often believe that they are somehow smarter (free-thinking), better, more evolved and enlightened than their 'superstitious' counter-parts. That's why they're hated. Truth is they are believers (in science) and often act no different or no better than any other believer.

[TZ]

35. LOL--Science as religion meme!

Do you even know what the scientific method IS? Its not a set of beliefs--its a way to procure evidence about the world surrounding us. Frankly its usually the creationists who make this nonsensical argument!!:banghead:
BTW--please name one atheist who is the head of a country today persecuting a religious minority? Or have you forgotten EVEN DEMS HAVE SAID THAT ATHEISTS HAVE NO RIGHTS AS CITIZENS.

[JackRiddler]

46. No, no, atheists do not believe that they're smarter about religious matter than believers.

They can establish it through presentation of confirmable fact and correct logic. That's much better.

[onager]

74. And blacks are often lazy and Jews are often stingy, right?

Atheists often believe that they are somehow smarter (free-thinking), better, more evolved and enlightened than their 'superstitious' counter-parts. That's why they're hated.

Did you divine this with your psychic powers? If so, pop on over to James Randi's website and apply for your free million-dollar prize.

I'm sure you'd love to collect a million from one of us uppity atheists.

However you horked it up, that is the classic definition of bigotry - a broad-brush accusation against all the members of a group.

[kwassa]

64. whenever I see "by your logic" I know you will try to put words in my mouth I didn't say

You can mention all the religious wars you want to, doesn't bother me in the slightest. Murder is murder, regardless who does it, and atheist hands aren't clean, either.

You failed to address the point of my post, by the way.

[jemelanson]

23. Say What?

[TZ]

34. lol

Lets start with the 6 million killed because they were a religion or NOT the acceptable religion. BTW, Stalin liked to kill Jews too. I would say that he killed in the name of religion too.
This farking meme about religion never hurting anyone is el stupido and offensive to the max to people who had relatives die because they were Jewish. You do know about how Jews have been persecuted over the years because of their religion. I suppose the ATHIESTS killed em right?

[kwassa]

82. why don't respond to what I wrote?

Stalin WAS an atheist, by the way, an atheist who killed about 20 million of his own people. Hitler had his own mish-mash of different views he expressed, but I really think he believed in himself more than anything else.

I never said religion never hurt anybody, the idiot meme I am responding to is that atheists never killed anybody.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

28. Pol Pot was a Roman Catholic

Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Che were atheists. Hitler considered Jesus Christ to be his saviour, though had a fetish for Nordic imagery.

[IDFbunny]

30. Hitler "had no use for that Jewish religion"

Hitler spoke of G-d and uttered the Lord a couple of times but has never spoke Jesus. He hated ALL Jews, Christian Jews weren't spared. He did not confront or deliberately offend Christians and his own religions convictions were deliberately vague. His expectation was that once the Jews were gone the Christian faith would evaporate and the Swastika would replace the Cross. Find were Hitler called on Jesus to save him.

[PassingFair]

95. How about this one:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. ...

- Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922

[IDFbunny]

110. Perfidy

That can be read in full context here:

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/Hitlersfaith.html

If you believe Hitler was a Catholic, you'll probably also believe Saddam Hussein was a Muslim.

[PassingFair]

111. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim.

What is your point?

[IDFbunny]

112. By birth, not by faith.

He was hated, in part, because he was not a faithful Muslim. He went through the motions as to not offend Muslim sensibilities. His own convictions were at best agnostic.

The Baathists are an allegory for Nazis.

[PassingFair]

113. Have you spoken about this in depth with him? I have a fallacy to sell you....

[Critters2]

132. I'd read the Baathists were Stalinists. nt

[IDFbunny]

33. Pol Pot was an avowed Communist.

Communists put their faith in science and eschew superstition. Most Atheists have had a religious upbringing.

[TZ]

36. would you like to back up your claims?

Unlike believers, I actually look for EVIDENCE not claims pulled out of ones ass..I am an atheist who had little in the way of religious upbringing btw...

[IDFbunny]

45. Did I say ALL?

Beside the point was just because Pol Pot got an infant baptism didn't make him a believing Roman Catholic. He was a Communist and an Atheist.

[Critters2]

48. One aspect of the "Year Zero" in the Khmer Rouge program

was to do away with all religion, along with several other cultural influences. As a Communist, Pol Pot was an atheist.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

47. not all communists

There are many different types of communist theory (communisms), Marxism is just a group of communist theories. For example there is such a thing as Christian Communism. Marxism and communism aren't synonyms.

Pol Pot's rejection of philosophical materialism actually put him at odds with orthodox Marxism.

[darkstar3]

54. Wrong

Communists by definition put their faith, belief, trust, and hope in one thing and one thing only: The State.

'Most Atheists have had a religious upbringing.'

How anecdotal. Visit Sweden, then try again.

[pnorman]

38. here's something about Hitler and Christianity:

http://www.somareview.com/mostfamouschristian.cfm

It appears to be 100% authentic, and surprised even me when I first came across it. I have another such link, but I can't find it at present.

pnorman
On edit: Here's that other link: http://skeptically.org/againstreligion/id13.html

[kwassa]

65. Pol Pot was not Catholic.

the interview with him that I read late in his life showed him expressing very Buddhist views, actually, though a very twisted version of them.

attending a Catholic school as a child means very little.

[onager]

75. Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist.

Like most Cambodians. He was a Buddhist monk for a short time in his youth.

As he got older, he mixed some tenets of Theravada Buddhism with his political beliefs.

The world was mystified when the Khmer Rouge literally emptied Pnomh Penh and other Cambodian cities in 1975. But that came directly from the religion, which teaches that cities are evil and the countryside is good.

You can read the whole story in Philip Short's chilling book Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare.

http://www.amazon.com/Pol-Pot-Nightmare-Philip-Short/dp/0805080066/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253861098&sr=1-1

[darkstar3]

55. Contrary to popular Amurkin belief,

Communism DOES NOT equal atheism. In fact, if you'd read anything about the communist dictatorships that you're trying to blame on the atheists, you would know that these dictatorships actually ran contrary to the concept of atheism. Rather than throwing away all gods, the dictators of these regimes set themselves up AS gods. In the mind of the hardened communist, The State is the highest authority, and as the ruler of The State, the dictator controls the authority, and is therefore a god.

Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin all made people WORSHIP them after a fashion. Mussolini was the worst, because after all, 'Mussolini is always right' was nothing if not a prayer in praise and supplication of the official god of the regime.

Oh, and BTW, I see your Hitler, and raise you a Godwin. :evilgrin:

[kwassa]

66. no, they weren't gods. They were just dictators that were also atheists.

Deal with it.

[darkstar3]

69. Oh please.

The more often you spout unsubstantiated BS, while completely ignoring arguments that you simply don't like, the more often you'll find yourself on the wrong side of a debate.

Would you care to refute any of my points?

The tired old meme you and others here are spewing was created by believers in an attempt to obfuscate their own responsibility for global violence. The fact is that the dictators you know practically nothing about desired power and deification by their subordinates, and atheism was just a red herring.

Deal with it.

[kwassa]

90. by the way

before you claim my statements as unsubstantiated, you have better step up and provide evidence of your original assertion, yourself.

You've provided no evidence of anything.

As I said before, claiming a state is like a religion does not make it so. There is no god there. There is a belief system, but it is not religious. This is where your parallel falls to pieces.

[darkstar3]

99. Actually, the ORIGINAL claim came from IDFbunny.

When she said 'Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Che, among others' in reference to 'atheist wars', I took issue with that, and presented my case.

As for proof of my assertions, I'm afraid I can't find it on your venerated internet. All I have is the education that I received in history and literature classes.

In my history classes we were taught that communism, especially as practiced by Stalin, was based entirely on the idea that the state is the final authority and source of all that is good. Sounds like godhood to me.

In lit classes, when we read things like Animal Farm and 1984, we talked about how communism in itself wasn't really the problem behind the regimes of the 20th century, but that the real problem was party leaders drunk with power determined to force more service and worship from the masses.

So I don't have any sources to quote for you at the moment. All I have is my public school and private college education. I'm sorry if that isn't good enough for you.

[kwassa]

107. Being all-powerful, in the state sense, does not make one a god.

except for a few states where the all-powerful leader ALSO represents themselves as a god, as in ancient Egypt, for instance. What you are really describing is a cult of personality, rather than a god. If that cult is also atheist, the effect will have no difference. Those not of the cult will be oppressed or killed.

this is funny. After I wrote the above paragraph, I googled "cult of personality" and the first entry was Wikipedia talking about Joseph Stalin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

A cult of personality arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.<1> Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships and Stalinist governments. A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of religious or non-political leaders.

Throughout history, monarchs were almost always held in enormous reverence. Through the principle of the divine right of kings, rulers were said to hold office by the will of God. Imperial China (see Mandate of Heaven), ancient Egypt, Japan, the Inca, the Aztecs, Tibet, and the Roman Empire (see imperial cult) are especially noted for redefining monarchs as god-kings.

Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to (supposedly) revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and comes to be treated as a benevolent "guide" for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as those of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Not all dictatorships foster personality cults, and some leaders may actively seek to minimize their own public adulation. For example, in the regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia, the image of Pol Pot himself was rarely seen. On the other hand, in North Korea there exists a very successful cult of personality, which includes actual semi-worship of both the father (Kim Il-sung) and son (Kim Jong-il).

interesting article.

[darkstar3]

119. Now that's the first compelling argument you've made,

since we started talking here, and I agree with it. What I have referred to in the past as Stalin's 'god complex' could very well be described as a cult of personality. Good catch.

But you have a second good catch in your post, and it makes my original point better than I did. To quote:
'If that cult is also atheist, the effect will have no difference. Those not of the cult will be oppressed or killed.'
I couldn't have said it better myself. Stalin and the others didn't kill people because they were atheists trying to squash religion. They killed people because they were leaders of cults of personality trying to squash dissent.

In other words, atheism had nothing to do with it.

[kwassa]

152. Your analysis is off

As much as you want to get atheism off the hook, vainly, these murderers were atheists, and atheism was part of their belief systems, and I don't mean the new definition of atheism, either. I mean it in the strong atheist sense.

Try as much as you like, you can't escape it. You are trying to make an end run by saying they would have killed all opponents anyways.
This doesn't work. You can't possibly know how much atheism affected their thinking one way or another, so for you to dismiss it is nothing more than wishful atheist thinking on your part. I could make equal claim with every Christian that went on the Crusades for that matter, or other wars done in the name of Christianity, but I don't. Or any murderer for any cause, for that matter.

To one degree or another, these beliefs in these leaders were formed, at least partially, by a belief in a conception of the world that includes atheism. How much is open to debate, but to dismiss it is ridiculous.

[darkstar3]

157. 'To dismiss it is ridiculous'

If this is the case, then to simplistically blame atheism for the killings committed by these people is equally ridiculous.

And I take issue with your usage of the phrase 'belief system', but that's a whole other bailiwick.

[kwassa]

163. But I didn't do that, did I?

"If this is the case, then to simplistically blame atheism for the killings committed by these people is equally ridiculous."

Never did it, never implied it.

[darkstar3]

164. Post #17 is awfully close.

You're splitting hairs.

Here's the original argument that I and others are trying to make boiled down to a nutshell:
'Atheism was not responsible for the murders committed by Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and others.'

Here's your argument:
'Atheists have killed millions.'

Do you see why your statement is so close to what I'm arguing against? By stating simply that 'atheists have killed millions,' without offering ANY kind of qualification as to why aside from the atheism that you mention, you ride dangerously close to the line of blaming atheism in general for those deaths.

You're toeing the line hard, and so while I would agree you've never actually flat-out blamed atheism, you HAVE implied it.

[Icbar]

167. Wiki

Please, please, please, don't ever quote Wikipedia as a source of knowledge. Doing that completely
destroys and credibility you may have earned up until that point.

[HamdenRice]

26. Arguably, the Cambodian killing fields would count as the latter. nt

[Why Syzygy]

12. And they return the favor in spades. nt

[EvolveOrConvolve]

13. I'm not sure what that means

Please explain.

[Why Syzygy]

72. darkstar3 gets it.

An example answers best:

Are many US churches just "jerk factories?"

[EvolveOrConvolve]

87. So, are you saying that atheists are reviled

because of the attitude of a small minority of posters on an obscure internet website?

My opinion is that the revulsion is caused more by the attitudes of a lot of believers and the teachings at their respective churches rather than any discussion that's happening on the internet.

Seriously, do you think that the average American who lacks trust in atheists are truly basing their opinion on the behavior of internet writers?

Answer me this: do you think atheists are unfit to serve in office simply because of their atheism? Answer me honestly, I have a thick skin. :)

[Why Syzygy]

92. No. I didn't say that at all.

I have no idea why anyone hates atheists. I simply stated it goes both ways. I know where MY prejudice has been born. Right here at DU. I don't have enough information to know why anyone else feels as they do. I was in love with an atheist, but he was open to unseen experiences. IOW, he wasn't a materialist. I'm not a Christian, so it worked out just fine.

I think anyone, atheist or otherwise, is unfit to serve if they habitually spew hate. You've probably noticed, we have quite a few unfit *serving* now. And there are certainly DU members who fit that description as well. Dawkins would be unfit.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

144. Just interested

After your correspondence with me, would you consider me fit to serve in office?

[Why Syzygy]

145. I've never seen you spew hatred.

I put you on ignore once, so you must have written something I considered an insult at least that time; unless you got caught in the sweep of the group which shall remain nameless.

You seem like a balanced guy. I wouldn't have any problems with you serving, assuming your platform respects civil liberties.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

146. I think you put me on ignore

during one of the numerous battles in the Health forum. I probably said something nasty (hey, we're not all perfect, and me even less so than others), but you were evenhanded enough to give me another look.

You bet your butt that I'd respect civil liberties, including those of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists. My big push would be to define universal health care as a basic civil right - you know, the whole life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing. If I were a politician, I'd probably be a mix of Dennis Kunicich and Bill Maher (although he's not a politician

I want as many progressive people as possible elected, and I don't care what their belief or lack thereof is regarding a deity or deities. And I'm less optimistic than I was last November...

[Why Syzygy]

147. Well that's the thing...

"civil liberties" applies to human beings without regard. PERIOD

Are you planning a run?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

156. I've thought about it

but I live in a district that hasn't elected a Democrat since the 60's. I'd have to run as an independent, and that doesn't appeal to me. I'm waiting to see how things are reapportioned after 2010, but I'm not holding my breath. Our legislature is 75% rabid right-wing republican, 10% moderate republican and 15% Dems. When they redraw the lines, I don't expect anything to be favorable to our side.

[Why Syzygy]

159. I hope you do.

You could be the one that turns the tide.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

162. If I did that, I'd have to change my avatar

Quagmire isn't the best image to put forth. (if you know who Quagmire is)

[darkstar3]

70. And now we get to butt heads...

:hi:

When it comes to internet message boards, you are correct in that any and all hate and rage directed at atheists/atheism is returned in kind. But this is only because in the anonymity of the internet we have the freedom to express ourselves. When was the last time this happened to you IRL? I certainly don't talk about my atheism with people IRL, mostly because I've seen the reception I've gotten in the past. Compare that to the number of people I've personally had preach to me about their own true way...

Returning the favor in spades is pretty hard when you know that you're alone in the workplace, or family, or what-have-you.

[Why Syzygy]

73. hiya! Nothing there to butt about.

You nailed it. Although the return in kind is not just directed at instances that begin at DU. They are brought in from outside as well.

I've never had any real life issues with atheists. My uncle is an atheist is a family full of fundamentalists. I always wished my grandmother would just leave him alone about it.

However, there are some professional atheists who teem with hatred, from my perspective. And they don't post here.

I really never gave it a second thought. To each his own and all. But since being exposed to the DU variety, gotta tell you, I've developed some prejudices. That's the mission the haters accomplish here.

[MNDemNY]

14. And I'M the bigot??

[unblock]

15. virtually all politicians understand that it's more important to fake it than to believe it.

most politicians understand that coming out atheist would be instant political suicide. given that, they would never let on if they believed otherwise. so how are we to know? and you know what, personally, i don't give a crap. i'm always vastly more interested in someone's moral attitudes and behavior than their religious attitudes and behaviors, and religiousness is not a good predictor of morality, especially in politicians. if anything, the louder people proclaim their religion, the least ethical they are, or so it seems. why? because those who are ethically challenged know that religion makes great cover.

[imdjh]

16. I'd say it's still black males because of relevant impact.

Maybe in some academic context this would not be the case but in day to day life I'd say that black males are the most hated and mistrusted because they do the most damage on a personal experience and eye-level plane. Muslims bombed the World Trade Center on TV, atheists are "trying to indoctrinate" public school children in the newspaper, but two black guys shot the store keeper at your corner store 1000 feet from your house where you daughter goes to buy candy after school.

To paraphrase Chris Rock- When you go to the ATM at night and look over your shoulder, you're not looking for Muslims or Atheists.

[Critters2]

118. +1 nt

[jonnyblitz]

18. I get more shit for being an atheist than I do for being gay.

hell, GAYS give me shit for being an atheist. :crazy:

[izzybeans]

19. Not sure I feel like "i'm most hated" but I can't say what I believe

out loud without someone telling me I'm attacking them. Somehow just mentioning my belief in "life on earth" rather than some mystical force is scary to some people. The common question is "why, do you believe that there is no god?" Few people really want to hear the answer. Few also believe that faith can come in secular forms. I have faith. Just not in god.

I'm with David Cross, why don't we all put on colored shirts corresponding to our teams and have a tug of war, settle this debate for good? Otherwise I really have no care about your beliefs. Mine can change if proof materializes. But the god hypothesis keeps being rejected in favor of the null.

[ElboRuum]

24. My answer to that question is always thus.

"Why, do you believe that there is no god?"

My answer: "There is no legitimate reason TO believe in a god, yet you consider it odd that I don't?"

[JackRiddler]

62. Yes, that's been my experience.

You just can't talk about it without the religious believers immediately feeling attacked. They won't usually react to this as a debate, which would be interesting, but as an unprovoked challenge to their identity. To me this reveals insecurity plus fanaticism.

Nevertheless, no one has ever gone out of their way to disadvantage me for not believing in their pet god.

[izzybeans]

63. My sentiments exactly.

Only once has anyone ever tried to "reconvert" me. And it was pretty innocent.

[Speck Tater]

22. It was certainly true when I was an atheist in the Air Force in the 1960's. nt

[HamdenRice]

25. How many atheists face housing discrimination or are followed around by security in stores?

Remind me again, what is the disproportionate rate of incarceration of atheists? And how many innocent atheists on death row has the Innocence Project exonerated? And, oh yeah, remind me about all those atheist share croppers who were exploited and forced into debt peonage. And please provide that primer about the sub-prime mortgages directed at atheists who are now losing their homes in record numbers. And before I forget, how many atheists are targeted by Immigration, even though they are citizens? Then, please point out on Google Maps the atheist "reservations."

This is the abso-fucking-lutely dumbest post I've ever read, not only on DU, but on that series of tubes called the internets.

[Silent3]

32. It's a different kind of discrimination because people...

...can't look at you and see that you're an atheist. Personally for myself, I don't feel like I've suffered much discrimination as an atheist, but I've lived all of my life in the northeast (NJ and NH), where it doesn't seem to cause anywhere near as much trouble as in other parts of the country. For atheists in the south, it can be a lot worse than I've ever had to deal with.

I do know that if I were ever so inclined (and fortunately for me, I'm not) being openly atheist would be a MAJOR obstacle to seeking elected office much higher than city council, even in my part of the country.

We've now managed to elect our first black President. I still think we're a long, long way off from a publicly avowed atheist President.

[JackRiddler]

52. Yes, there's that elected office thing again...

It's true.

But elections are an institution where discrimination is actually sanctioned. You may vote for or against someone because you dislike their religion, race, gender, etc.

Elections are a popularity contest about who we want to represent us. In effect, the majorities are choosing avatars, and it's absolutely the case that they want to hear a lot of la-la about God Bless America, otherwise they will not vote for you. An open atheist cannot be elected.

However, this cannot be compared to discrimination in housing, employment, or by the police.

I absolutely guarantee the following: a white person who announces themselves as a Professor of Atheism at a college (yes, I know that doesn't exist, thank you) would have an easier time finding housing in most cities than a black person regardless of religion.

But I do have a big-city perspective. Where people don't really worry about philosophy. That's only about half the nation, it's true.

[Silent3]

148. Like I said, I personally haven't ever run into much trouble

But I have heard from atheists here on DU who live in particular religious areas, typically "red" and southern states, who have faced, or at least feel real fear, of being fired from their jobs and being denied housing if they let anyone know they're atheists. For the most part I'm willing to take them at their word on this -- we're talking about atheists living in areas of the country where the same kinds of attitudes you see in the "teabagger" movement are particularly prevalent.

[TZ]

37. Its illegal for atheists to hold public office in many states.

Would you like to tell me how many atheist representatives there are in Congress? ONE--I think IIRC there are a few more African-Americans than that.
Oh btw, Senator Liebermann said that atheists should not be allowed to be citizens. I haven't heard that said about any other minority lately have you? Atheists DO FACE DISCRIMINATION. But because its easy to hide these views its not obvious. But there are a LOT OF PEOPLE who have lost jobs because of their views- alot of people who have lost friends, lost housing opportunities.
I would say YOUR POST is one of the dumbest things I've seen here lately. And given your history that says ALOT.

[HamdenRice]

40. The OP says "Most Hated"

not that atheists face some discrimination. So again -- how many atheists have been wrongly convicted on death row? Where are the atheist ghettos? How many atheist youths get caught up in the prison industrial complex?

[LAGC]

154. Well, you don't find hardly any atheists on Death Row...

Because they all seem to suddenly embrace Christ and ask him to forgive them of all their sins so that they will hopefully go to Heaven in spite of their heinous crimes...

Religion is quite popular in prison, and wherever there's plenty of despair and hopelessness. It's just the crutch for the weary to lean on during hard times...

[JackRiddler]

53. How many black people in Congress received a majority of the white vote?

On the national level, you can't even say that about Obama.

Anyway, you could both tone down the rhetoric, because this isn't a pissing match. Atheists are discriminated against and have lost jobs for their views (also lost their lives!), but it just doesn't happen nowadays in urban contexts where people don't usually proselytize their views to each other.

Racism remains powerful, all the more so because it's essentialist (blacks can't convert to white) and pertains to a visible, immutable quality.

Maybe my relaxedness about this pertains to being in a big city with a lot of tolerance for ideas and a lot less among ethnicities (contrary to the propaganda).

& Fuck Lieberman!

[LAGC]

155. I never did like Lieberman.

That two-faced bastard lost all respect over the Iraqi War issue.

[ZombieHorde]

41. My wife, daughter, and I were turned away from Habitat for Humanity because they liked

"good Christian families."

"How many atheists face housing discrimination or are followed around by security in stores?"

Atheists and gay people are often discriminated by their own parents, other family members, so called friends, etc. The discrimination is different than racial discrimination, but it is still very cruel, especially for children. I was punished by my family for not being Christian.

[HamdenRice]

43. Did you go to jail?

Because I know lots of minority youth in NYC who are caught up in stupid police sweeps and have to spend the night in jail for not having ID.

The OP doesn't say that atheists face discrimination. It says they are the most hated minority.

When you can point out to me on google maps an atheist "reservation" then we'll be able to have a serious discussion of the OP.

[ZombieHorde]

44. I don't see what reservations have to do with this, but there is a very good chance of atheists

on reservations.

"Because I know lots of minority youth in NYC who are caught up in stupid police sweeps and have to spend the night in jail for not having ID."

How would a cop recognize an atheist youth? I don't understand your arguments.

[JackRiddler]

51. Do you think the Humanists are under surveillance by the Red Squad?

In part, you're making the point: a cop wouldn't recognize an atheist youth. Which is why atheists are not a persecuted group, even if they are hated by most people in some abstract, general way.

Furthermore, and I'll admit this is not yet an empirical study but merely a hypothesis: a white youth who announces his atheism to a typical New York cop has a lot less to worry about than a black youth who does so; even less than a black youth who wears a cross and praises Jesus.

[Why Syzygy]

71. How did they know you were atheists?

I didn't realize HfH considered themselves a Christian organization.

Habitat for Humanity Int'l
A nonprofit, ecumenical Christian housing organization building simple, decent, affordable housing in partnership with people in need.
www.habitat.org/

That's really unfortunate. It isn't very helpful for the poor to have a discrimination policy for volunteers.

[ZombieHorde]

108. "How did they know you were atheists?"

I am not entirely sure, they were looking around my house, perhaps they saw some books.

"I didn't realize HfH considered themselves a Christian organization."

I don't think what happened to us was official HfH policy. I think the people who came to interview us were simply prejudiced.

[darkstar3]

121. HfH IS a Christian organization.

They begin EVERY day of work with a prayer, including group hand-holding. That's why I refused to join our local HfH.

[Critters2]

122. You won't help the poor because you might have to hold people's

hands while they pray?


Way to make a stand!!

[darkstar3]

129. Wow, logic jump!

I won't join with HfH so automatically I won't help the poor? :wtf:

There are plenty of organizations out there that are happy to leave faith/belief/whatever out of helping the poor. I consider them to be more worthy of my time and money, and so I avoid HfH and other faith-based bullshit.

[Critters2]

124. They saw books?

Yeah, that's probably it. :eyes:

[darkstar3]

130. Bookshelves, medicine cabinets, even drawers when you're not looking.

These are the places where people who come to your home tend to look for more information about you. Generally, this is only done by nosy aunts, cousins, and neighbors, but if you invite someone to your home for the purposes of future business, believe me they will be nosy.

[Critters2]

131. You think people you invite into your home are looking for

information about you? Wow. How sad for you.

[darkstar3]

134. Save your pity

you'll need all you can get when the blinders finally fall off. :eyes:

[Critters2]

135. Ha!

There it is again!!


You're better than me! Whee!! It's only a matter of time until I see! :rofl:

[darkstar3]

138. When have I ever said or insinuated that I'm better than you?

Calling you blind to this problem isn't insinuating that I'm better than you. Rather, it expresses the fact that I have experience in what I'm talking about even though you may not have seen it.

Compare with the theme of the posts you've made thus far in this thread. You're obviously looking down your nose at me, and I think at every atheist on this board.

So laugh all you want, but remember, the 'you think you're better than me' argument always has been, is, and always will be bullshit.

[Critters2]

141. So, you feel you're faring better in the contest to be a victim.

That's my point. Congratulations. Remember, that's what this competition is about...who's the real victim.

Oh, and I've taken no position in this thread as either a believer nor an atheist, but rather as an observer. You've placed me in a position, because you see this discussion as a duality. I'm either on your side, or I'm competing with your side. I am neither of these. I look at these things differently. I think this kind of competition is unhealthy and unnecessary. No one wins, as this thread is demonstrating.

I'm not looking down my nose at you or atheists in particular, but you need to believe so, because your identity is bound up in the idea that someone is looking down their nose at you. As I've said elsewhere, what you need to do is to find a positive model in your own group and stop caring so much about what goes on among your competitors. That will stop all of this. If you're happy as an atheist, stop caring what I think.

It's that, or continue the mimetic rivalry.

[darkstar3]

142. Oh good for you, you haven't chosen sides.

How superior of you.

You're not an observer, you're a spectator, and you're getting your jibes in here and there to try and stir the pot so you can keep watching heads explode on both sides of the debate.

Except not, because every post you've made so far has been in support of only one side.

Further, discussion IS a duality. We setup two sides (or more, sometimes) to an argument, and we argue it out. To claim otherwise is just silly.

Finally, why would I ever need you to be involved in my identity. How highly you think of yourself...

[Critters2]

150. All human beings gain their identity in response to others.

Interesting to me that you assume I think you're gaining your identity in reference to me. That's not what I said. You simply don't understand mimetic theory and are so caught up in your own assumptions and conflict that there's no reason to continue talking to you. You're not open to seeing any way but one of conflict and anger.

[darkstar3]

158. Wow.

You know, where I grew up we had this phrase. 'Superior sumbitch' I think was how it was put.

I care nothing about your mimetic theory, mainly because I think it's simple armchair quarterbacking. As for the rest of your post, you have proven for the last time that you feel superior to me. That's OK, though, because I've discovered that I don't give a damn what you think.

You can sit on your little cloud and judge anyone you want, because there's one point of your post that I agree with. 'here's no reason to continue talking to you.' Damn skippy, buddy. You just became my very first DU ignore.

Enjoy your :freak:

[Critters2]

161. Scapegoating and attacking. Yep. That's the next step. nt

[ZombieHorde]

140. If you saw my book collection you would understand. nt

[darkstar3]

57. Wow, that was intense.

Did you hurt yourself? Is there vomit on your keyboard? 'Cause there's sure a lot of bile on my screen.

Yes, my indignant, self-righteous friend, your group IS more persecuted. BUT ONLY DUE TO OPPORTUNITY.

If atheists could be picked out of lineup, you could bet your ass we'd be the most persecuted group in this country. People think we're completely nihilistic mad scientists determined to take everyone in the world with us when we blow shit up. There's evidence of that feeling here on this very message board!

Take that information and imagine for a moment if TSA screeners, cops, and private citizens could recognize us on sight. We'd be strip searched in every airport, pulled over at every turn, harassed at the entry to every secure building, and denied loans, homes, and even firearms. After all, we can't let those crazy atheists get near us in case they're plotting our demise, and we especially can't let them get their hands on anything that could be used as a weapon.

Yes, I know that none of that happens now, and it won't because we can 'pass for normal.' But the OP wasn't about PERSECUTION, Captain Miss-The-Point, it was about HATE. And if you think that hate is something to simply dismiss, as the content of your post suggests, then you've lost your mind. Hate is the root of persecution, the drive behind rejecting 'the other', and the easiest emotion by far to morph into violence.

Of course, hate is also the source of a lot of bile...hmm...:think:

[JackRiddler]

58. Hmmm... St. Louis, I'm starting to think there really is something to this red/blue state stuff...

Cos pretty much none of this stuff is true in Queens, New York. Even though most people are believers and churchgoers.

Perhaps another difference is this poll asks people what they think of atheists.

Whereas if you asked people an open ended question:

Of all groups in society, whose guts do you hate?

... I doubt very much atheist would be anywhere near a common answer.

"Liberal" would probably come in higher. As would, for that matter, "Republican."

And if people really honestly said what popped into their heads, I expect a couple of religions and ethnic groups would come out pretty high.

Atheist wouldn't even come to mind for most people, I believe.

But if you named that group, yes, then most people would express disapproval. But in my neighborhood, it would not have the strength you are suggesting.

[darkstar3]

59. You're probably right about the polling,

but I just chalk that up to 'out of sight, out of mind.' As for your neighborhood vs. mine, well, let's put it this way. On top of my training gig, I own my own business, and if ANY of my customers found out I was an atheist, my customer base would dry up PFQ. I've been told to my face by no less than 2 customers that they don't trust non-christians. And businesses around here know about that aspect, and cater to it. Most small businesses have little fish on their signs and vehicles, and there's one small business that specifically advertises the fact that they are closed on Sunday's because it's God's day. Most big businesses, like chain restaurants and stores, don't bother with any kind of specifically faith-based advertising, but the local small businesses can get crazy. This isn't the place to be an atheist business owner looking for customers.

[JackRiddler]

60. Well that settles it then.

New York is not St. Louis.

First of all, if you told every customer you were an atheist, you would indeed lose business. Because you were proselityzing instead of doing business. But of course, that would be just as true if you went on about Jesus. Because this is a very, very, mixed population, and people have a mind your own business mentality.

I forget these things.

[darkstar3]

61. 'mind your own business mentality.'

That'd be nice. Here we have a 'mind everyone else's business mentality.'

[PassingFair]

98. Yeah, you never see this kind of shit...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_idzsaV6c7aM/SUCGEZ4UXSI/AAAAAAAAC9U/M3ntVB2MHn0/s320/logo+fish+plumber+1.jpg

[JackRiddler]

100. Where is that?

It wouldn't be impossible in New York, you know. Just uncommon.

[PassingFair]

102. Open any yellowpages and you'll find them...

You won't see any of these, though....

[kwassa]

67. what a self-pity party.

The idea that atheists are the most hated in ludicrous in the extreme.

oh, the poooor, suffering down-trodden atheists, slaving away on the fundamentalist plantations. So much discrimination. Having to drink at the Ungodly water fountains, ride in the back of the church bus, subjected to inferior secular schools. The injustice of it all.

Some of you want to think of yourself that way, and won't face the reality that most people could care less. You're all wrapped up in that giant chip on your shoulder.

[darkstar3]

68. Thank you for proving the point.

Your obvious disdain for those who think differently than you only serves to illustrate the fact that you are happy to have us as the outcasts.

And again, the you MISSED THE POINT OF THE POST!!

:banghead:

[HamdenRice]

78. The disdain isn't for atheists

I'm an atheist. The disdain is for sloppy thinking, silly reasoning and self pity about things that could happen but haven't compared to things that actually are happening to others.

[darkstar3]

80. Sloppy thinking? Silly reasoning?

Point to them please.
:eyes:

[kwassa]

81. and what is your point? do you have a point?

[darkstar3]

85. Only the one you completely missed or deliberately skipped in the OP. n/t

[rd_kent]

115. Sure, people could care less about atheists....

until we ask that government not have religion in it.

[darkstar3]

125. +1 for you. :)

[HamdenRice]

77. Most important word in your post--->

"If atheists ..."

And if Pol Pot's hair cells had been preserved and then cloned into a dozen babies, and all of them raised under the exact same conditions as the original Pol Pot, and all of them released into the world then Cambodian Buddhists would be the most persecuted group in the world.

Problem is, it never happened and never will.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Jeez, the logic around here sometimes... Just think of how profoundly foolish your argument is: Atheists are the most discriminated against because "if there were TSA screeners that distinguished atheists, just think what would happen!" That's just dumb and you know it.

And just what do you think "my group" is? I don't live on a reservation and am not a Native American, but I can grasp how severe the discrimination faced by them is, even if I don't experience it. I can also name two dozen groups whose discrimination is worse than that against atheists, which in real life (not your fevered science fiction imagination of atheist TSA scanners) is nearly non-existent.

[darkstar3]

79. I never said you were Native American or black.

I said whoever you were referring to was your pet group.

AND YOU'RE DELIBERATELY IGNORING THE POINT AGAIN TO SCORE CHEAP POINTS AND MAKE IT LOOK LIKE YOU'RE RIGHT.

Again, no one said atheists were the most persecuted or discriminated against group. It's about hate, but you don't care because somehow you don't think that's important.

[kwassa]

83. Read the University of Minnesota study; it says nothing about hatred.

Read the study yourself.

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/files/atheist%20as%20the%20other.pdf

It says nothing about hatred anywhere in it.

It DOES say least accepted, but if you look at the graph in the middle of it you will see that acceptence of atheists has been on a steady growth trend since the fifties, and that homosexuals have only recently passed atheists as being more accepted.

There is a difference between not accepting someone, and active hatred.

You also need to deal with the fact that most Americans use the word atheist differently than the people in this forum; that is, in the old-fashioned sense of someone who believes that there is no God, the strong atheist position.

[darkstar3]

84. 2 things.

'There is a difference between not accepting someone, and active hatred.'

Define that please.

'You also need to deal with the fact that most Americans use the word atheist differently than the people in this forum.'

I don't see how that fact matters or what exactly I need to 'deal with' in this case. 'Strong atheist' or 'weak atheist,' it doesn't matter, because the bottom line is that we don't believe in the god or gods put forth by the vast majority of Americans, so what's the difference in their eyes.

Further, there's no such thing as 'strong atheism' or 'weak atheism.' There is atheism, and agnosticism. If you don't believe in any one god or set of gods, you're an atheist (without theism or diety). If you're not sure, you're an agnostic.

[kwassa]

89. here is my response,

Not accepting can be a passive position, while hatred is an active position. Hatred denotes a much higher level of emotional involvement than mere acceptance. The two are not the same.

you said
"Further, there's no such thing as 'strong atheism' or 'weak atheism.' There is atheism, and agnosticism. If you don't believe in any one god or set of gods, you're an atheist (without theism or diety). If you're not sure, you're an agnostic."

You haven't been reading this forum, then, because atheists here have been defining themselves, as strong or weak atheists, this way, right here, for years. In other words, they don't agree with you.

and read the study, so you know what it actually says.

[darkstar3]

97. A decent definition

There is a fine line between lack of acceptance and hate, and you've nailed it perfectly, but I do think that a lot of people play hopscotch down that line.

'because atheists here have been defining themselves, as strong or weak atheists, this way, right here, for years. In other words, they don't agree with you.'

And as long they have been doing that, other atheists have been arguing with them. When it comes to atheism, at least, the dictionary tends to agree with me.
'From Greek a- meaning without and theos, meaning God, atheists are those without a belief in God.'
It doesn't say that some atheists believe there could be a god or the jury is still out, it says simply that atheists don't believe in God.

And I know what the study says, as I saw it when it FIRST came out, and I still pretty much agree with the topic of the OP. As I said in my first sentence, people play hopscotch down the middle of your fine line. It's not as cut and dried as people might like it to be.

[PassingFair]

96. My children have experienced MANY instances of discrimination

for voicing their atheist status in school and
with their friends.

I have had mothers refuse to let their kids
come over to my house because of it.

My kids have been jeered at and excluded from
groups at school, to the extent where teachers
have had to step in and explain that you can't
have "god clubs" in latchkey that exclude agnostics
and atheists (thank goodness the latchkey teacher
was an agnostic!).

My oldest daughter told people she was Jewish just
to avoid the DISCRIMINATION.

My kids have learned from our CHRISTIAN SOCIETY, that
they should keep their mouths SHUT if they don't want
trouble.

I generally do the same at work.

[darkstar3]

101. 'I generally do the same at work.'

No kidding. Once a majority Christian workplace knows you're an atheist, you are pesona non grata.

Suddenly, when everyone else goes to lunch, they forget to invite you. When they pass you in the hallways, they ignore you. And when they plan team building exercises outside of work, they exclude you. Then the day comes when they eliminate your non-redundant position and don't tell you why. Two months later you find out that they recreated the position and hired someone else who fit into their group.

I learned a hard lesson that year, and now I don't talk about faith, sexual orientation, or many different political issues at work, even if that means I sit out on group conversations. I won't be the black sheep again just because I don't believe in an unprovable supernatural being.

[Why Syzygy]

103. I cannot think of a single instance

when I knew (or cared) what anyone at work held as religious views. Take that back. One exception. The owners of a couple of flower shops where I designed were church goers, and it influenced their business practices. In one case the influence was for the better, in the other for the worst, because she was a huge hypocrite. Other than that, in office settings, who knows? Work isn't the place to discuss religion or politics.

[darkstar3]

106. Oh I agree,

Work ISN'T the place to discuss religion or politics, but it happens anyway. It always happens in those workplaces where everyone is supposed to be friends. 'Oh we're all one big team here' and blah blah blah... A lot of businesses around here don't care as much as they used to about workplace 'decorum' for lack of a better word. When we deal with customers, we must be the epitome of 'professional', but when we deal with colleagues there are no rules. The whole idea is that we're all supposed to be one big happy comfortable-around-each-other family, and personally I don't think that really works in the workplace.

[rd_kent]

117. Thats too bad!

I keep quiet too, until someone else opens the converation about religion, THEN I cannot shut up.... I DARE someone to discriminate against me because I am an atheist.

[Critters2]

126. Then, once they've taken you up on your dare,

do you whine about it?

:eyes:

[darkstar3]

136. In general

from what I've seen of his posts, rd_kent whines no more than you.

And is that what you think this thread is about? That atheists are 'whining' about being hated?

[Critters2]

137. Everyone in this thread is trying to win the "more hated than you"

contest. Whining is an important skill in such a competition.

Good luck! :hi:

[Anarcho-Socialist]

29. Maybe

It's not immediately obvious what someone's religion is, or any lack of religion. It's not as easy to discriminate on the basis of atheism than e.g. it is on the basis of race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, disability etc.

Because distinctive non-religion does not usually take a visual quality it makes severe forms of bigotry less prevalent for it than the other categories of 'minorities.' Though when the issue of people's atheism has been raised, reports have shown that atheist persons and families have suffered violence and harrassment especially in more hostile parts of the United States.

[sspeilbergfan90]

39. What idiots Americans are

[rd_kent]

120. Thats all you have to say? Enjoy your stay....

douchebag

[Critters2]

42. I enjoy watching the competition to be the most victimized.

What happens when someone wins?

:popcorn:

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackRiddler]

49. From heathen New York I must say this isn't my personal experience at all.

First of all, it's certain that an openly atheist person cannot be elected to anything in this country. Too many of the religious treat the mere espousal of the atheist idea as an attack on their own identity. Many of them feel persecuted by the mere existence of atheism.

Thus it's true, as the survey said, that atheists are the most universally "mistrusted" group.

But persecuted? Let's go beyond the example of who can get themselves elected in what are essentially popularity contests with political consequences.

Let us begin granting the caveat that I live in New York City, not Colorado Springs...

...and admit that I speak from a lot of accumulated observation, albeit personal...

Nevertheless.

People may get absolutely enraged by atheist opinion, and attack it as the worst thing in the world, but they do not:

a) identify the holder of such opinion as essentially "atheist," and therefore to be excluded from "normal" society;

b) discriminate consistently against atheists as individuals, or

c) react viscerally to exclude them with the intensity that many still feel with regard to race.

I've never heard anyone curse another person on the street as an atheist!

In short, the atheist in the modern urban environment is not a per-se discriminated person who won't get jobs or apartments because of their atheism. Of course, this is also because atheism is not a visible quality, like race or gender or culture.

And there are many contexts where the aggressively religious are considered unpleasant idiots, whereas atheists who don't proselytize too often are preferred.

What's clearly unpopular is atheist rhetoric, but it doesn't generally redound in the form of material damage to the person who espouses it.

I'm going out on a limb and speculating that these results are largely because even in an anonymous survey, people are reluctant to say how they really feel about race or gender, but feel free to trash-talk about atheists, especially given that they may not even realize how many atheists there are around them, since people tend to avoid religious discussions altogether.

[Nihil]

86. Excellent points.

> And there are many contexts where the aggressively religious are considered
> unpleasant idiots, whereas atheists who don't proselytize too often are
> preferred.
+
> What's clearly unpopular is atheist rhetoric, but it doesn't generally
> redound in the form of material damage to the person who espouses it.

:toast:

In addition,
> especially given that they may not even realize how many atheists there
> are around them, since people tend to avoid religious discussions altogether.

... I'd suggest that most of the time when religious discussions do arise,
they are started in a manner that either states or implies that the atheist
vs believer "conflict" is binary - i.e., that there is no room for tolerance,
understanding or acceptance of "the other" within it from either side.
This would tend to bias the answer to a poll question in the street right
from the start.

:shrug:

[rd_kent]

76. We can only pray!

:evilgrin:

[D23MIURG23]

88. We've probably had several atheist presidents -

I'd say our first was probably Jefferson. Not all atheists are self-proclaiming atheists; lots of people are perceptive enough to read the writing on the wall, but continue to be unbelieving religious culturalists. Jefferson for instance produced an edited version of the bible with all the supernatural BS and general bizzarity stripped out. In my view that reflects an atheist outlook.

[kwassa]

91. Everyone wants to claim Jefferson for their side of the argument.

http://www.monticello.org/reports/interests/religion.html

Jefferson was always reluctant to reveal his religious beliefs to the public, but at times he would speak to and reflect upon the public dimension of religion. He was raised as an Anglican, but was influenced by English deists such as Bolingbroke and Shaftesbury. Thus in the spirit of the Enlightenment, he made the following recommendation to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787: "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." In Query XVII of Notes on the State of Virginia, he clearly outlines the views which led him to play a leading role in the campaign to separate church and state and which culminated in the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom: "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg . . . . Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error." Jefferson's religious views became a major public issue during the bitter party conflict between Federalists and Republicans in the late 1790s when Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist.



With the help of Richard Price, a Unitarian minister in London, and Joseph Priestly, an English scientist-clergyman who emigrated to America in 1794, Jefferson eventually arrived at some positive assertions of his private religion. His ideas are nowhere better expressed than in his compilations of extracts from the New Testament "The Philosophy of Jesus" (1804) and "The Life and Morals of Jesus" (1819-20?). The former stems from his concern with the problem of maintaining social harmony in a republican nation. The latter is a multilingual collection of verses that was a product of his private search for religious truth. Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." In correspondence, he sometimes expressed confidence that the whole country would be Unitarian, but he recognized the novelty of his own religious beliefs. On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

[Critters2]

104. They do the same with Lincoln. nt

[D23MIURG23]

123. Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, he must more approve ...

the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.


People didn't just come out and say "I don't believe in God" in Jefferson's day. Jefferson in the above statement derides faith as "blindfolded fear" and champions reason, all the while advocating the questioning of god's existance altogether. Theists might want Jefferson in their camp, but I have a hard time seeing how a critical analysis of his thinking would provide them any comfort. They also want to claim Einstein, in spite of the fact that his impiety aroused contempt from the religious mob of his own day. I guess "God does not play dice" wasn't interpreted to mean the Abrahamic sky giant throwing literal knuckle-bones until recently.

[Critters2]

105. Why would an atheist bother with the Bible at all? nt

[D23MIURG23]

114. Because it is a culturally important document.

I would think that would be obvious. Atheists aren't against mythology, we are against confusing mythology with reality.

The obvious point of producing an abridged Bible with no references to supernaturalism would be to emphasize the importance of good works and charity over the mythological and belief centered aspects of the book. If a moral precept can stand on its own virtue then it needs no vengeful Abrahamic tyrant to enforce it.

[Critters2]

116. Thanks for supporting my theory.

Just amusing. Really.

[D23MIURG23]

128. Care to share your theory?

If I'm establishing something inadvertently I'd be interested to know what.

[Critters2]

133. More mimetic stuff.

You support your position by taking a swipe at the other...the whole vengeful Abrahamic God stuff. You could've made your point without it, but you chose to enter into negative mimesis.

I just find it amusing that no one on this forum seems able to make a point without reflecting negatively against the other.

[Critters2]

109. Am I the only one here who's read Girard?

The mimetic competition in this forum to decide who is the most persecuted is really amusing. Both the believers and atheists on this forum use one another as negative models, and then spin headlong into a race for that coveted "most hated" prize. Girard would point out that each group needs the other as a negative mimetic model. You don't seem to know who you are without the other to compare yourselves to. You gain a sense of identity by comparison, by negative mimesis.

My suggestion would be that both groups look for positive mimetic models within your own groups--or outside your group, if you find one--and stop worrying about your competition here.

There really isn't a prize for being the most hated group in America, and this kind of contest is not constructive. And you won't change the culture in your favor by behaving like the group you claim to hate (but continue to use as a model).

Anyway, it's all very interesting from the standpoint of mimetic theory.

[D23MIURG23]

127. I haven't, but I concur.

Victimhood isn't something to revel in. A victim complex never informs a healthy outlook on life no matter who you are or how arguable it is that you have been victimized.

[Critters2]

139. There are actual victims in life, and one ought to empathize with them,

do what one can to protect them, and try to stop the victimage mechanism. But competition for the prize of victim will create a different victim...one choosing not to enter into the competition, one different from either competing group. The best way to create peace is to care for real victims. And if you're in one of the competing groups...it isn't you.

[jemelanson]

149. I think there maybe one group they hate more...Witches (Wicca)

The Christian church has never admitted that Satan was a part of their religion and not apart of the Witches. Wicca has no Satan in its religion. Now I am not saying that there are no Satanists. There are but they are a branch of Christianity not Wicca. I know that is a little tough to swallow. Howere it is true.

[Critters2]

151. Another contender for the title! Goody! NOW it's a horse race! nt

[gk88850]

153. Well, I'm glad I'm distrusted by such idiots

[iris27]

160. I think the news article distorted the original study a bit, as usually

happens in science reporting. "Most hated and distrusted" is a bit of hyperbole. The original study asked three questions:
1) Likelihood of voting for a member of X group to be president,
2) X group does not agree at all with my vision of American society, and
3) I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of X group

The groups listed were: African-American, Asian American, atheist, conservative Christian, homosexual, Hispanic, Jew, Muslim, recent immigrant, and white. (Wonder how the results would've looked if they'd included transgender?)

Anyway, in all three cases, atheists came out worst. And I believe it. I think atheists face much less day-to-day discrimination than the other groups listed, because it's easy to hide in the no-faith closet. But some of the most astonishing examples of bigotry I've seen have been directed at people who stumbled and let slip that they don't believe in a god.

[Independent_Voice]

166. Atheists, be glad you have like-minded communities...

As a polytheist, I'm not only regarded as "nutty," but I encounter very few "fellow nuts" in everyday life who have religious beliefs in line with my own. Everyone else seems to be either Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, or ambivalent. My closest support group is Wiccans, who are generally extremely open-minded and friendly people to be around -- but since I don't directly practice Wicca, I'm still sort of left out of the loop.

Also, in the same way the unintelligent often jump to the conclusion that an "atheist" is the same as a "Satanist," when I tell people I'm a "polytheist" they jump to the conclusion that it's the same as a "polygamist."

Or, people just squint their eyes at me and ask, "What the hell's that (polytheism)?"