Discrimination against atheists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series of articles on Discrimination

General forms Racism Sexism Ageism Religious intolerance Xenophobia

Specific forms Social Homophobia · Transphobia Ableism · Sizeism · Heightism · Adultism Misogyny · Misandry · Lookism Gerontophobia · Classism · Elitism

Against cultures: Americans Arabs Armenians Canadians Chinese Europeans Croats French Germans Greeks Indians Iranians Italians Japanese Polish Quebecers Roma Russians Serbs Turks

Against religions: Catholics Christians Hindus Jews Mormons Muslims Protestants

Manifestations Slavery · Racial profiling · Lynching Hate speech · Hate crime · Hate groups Genocide · Holocaust · Pogrom Ethnocide · Ethnic cleansing · Race war Religious persecution · Gay bashing Pedophobia · Ephebiphobia

Movements Discriminatory Aryanism · Neo-Nazism · Supremacism Kahanism Anti-discriminatory Abolitionism · Civil rights · Gay rights Women's/Universal suffrage · Men's rights Children's rights · Youth rights Disability rights · Inclusion Social model of disability · Autistic rights

Policies Discriminatory Segregation: Racial/Ethnic/Religious/Sexual Apartheid · Redlining · Internment Anti-discriminatory Emancipation · Civil rights · Desegregation Integration · Reservation · Reparations Affirmative action · Racial quota

Law Discriminatory Anti-miscegenation · Anti-immigration Alien and Sedition Acts · Nuremberg Laws Jim Crow laws · Black codes · Apartheid laws Anti-discriminatory List of anti-discrimination acts

Other forms Nepotism · Cronyism Colorism · Linguicism Ethnocentrism · Triumphalism Adultcentrism · Isolationism Economic discrimination

Related topics Prejudice · Supremacism · Intolerance Tolerance · Diversity · Multiculturalism Political correctness · Reverse discrimination Eugenics · Racialism This box: view • talk • edit

Many atheists have experienced discrimination, mainly from religious entities. These may not always be so severe as to be called persecution, but they are indicative of the social rejection atheists have suffered through the ages.

Contents 1 Etymology 2 Victorian England 3 Present-day discrimination 3.1 United States 3.1.1 State Constitutions 3.2 Sweden 4 Atheism as immorality 4.1 Other pejorative definitions of atheism 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading

[edit] Etymology

The term athéisme itself was coined in France in the 16th century as adopted from the Greek term Áthèos (Á meaning not or non, and thèos meaning god or gods). Athéisme was initially used as an accusation against scientists, critics of religion, materialistic philosophers, deists, and others who seemed to represent a threat to established beliefs.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Victorian England

In Victorian England the atheist Charles Bradlaugh was elected MP for Northampton. His request to be allowed to affirm on taking his seat was denied, and he was also prevented from taking the (religious) oath as an alternative. During the lengthy dispute, he was fined and even briefly imprisoned, despite being repeatedly elected to his office. Ultimately he was able to get a bill passed securing the right of affirmation.

[edit] Present-day discrimination

[edit] United States

In the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign, Republican presidential candidate George H. W. Bush reportedly said, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." ^[1] In the United States, there is widespread disapproval of atheists. For example, according to motherjones.com, 52% of Americans claim they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist for president.^[2] More recently a 2007 Gallup poll produced nearly identical results.^[3] A 2006 study at the University of Minnesota showed atheists to be the most mistrusted minority among Americans. Notwithstanding such attitudes, atheists are legally protected from discrimination in the United States. They have been among the strongest advocates of the legal separation of church and state. American courts have regularly, if controversially, interpreted the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state as protecting the freedoms of non-believers, as well as prohibiting the establishment of any state religion. Atheists often sum up the legal situation with the phrase: "Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion." ^[4]

In the 1994 case^[5] Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Justice Souter wrote in the opinion for the Court that: "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." ^[6] Everson v. Board of Education established that "neither a state nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another". This applies the Establishment Clause to the states as well as the federal government. ^[7] However, several state constitutions make the protection of persons from religious discrimination conditional on their acknowledgement of the existence of a deity, apparently making freedom of religion in those states inapplicable to atheists. These state constitutional clauses have not been tested. Civil rights cases are typically brought in federal courts; so such state provisions are mainly of symbolic importance.

In the Newdow case, after a father challenged the phrase "under God" in the United States Pledge of Allegiance, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the phrase unconstitutional. Although the decision was stayed pending the outcome of an appeal, there was the prospect that the pledge would cease to be legally usable without modification in schools in the western United States, over which the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction. This resulted in political furor, and both houses of Congress passed resolutions condemning the decision, unanimously.^[8]. On June 26^th, a Republican dominated group of 100-150 congressmen stood outside the capital and recited the pledge - showing how much they disagreed with the decision.^[8] The Supreme Court subsequently reversed the decision, ruling that Michael Newdow did not have standing to bring his case, thus disposing of the case without ruling on the constitutionality of the pledge.

Several private organizations, the most notable being the Boy Scouts of America, do not allow atheist members. However, this policy has come under fire by organizations who assert that the Boy Scouts of America do profit from taxpayer money and thus cannot be called a truly private organization, and thus must admit atheists (along with homosexuals and others currently barred from membership). An organization called Scouting for All,^[9] founded by Eagle Scout Steven Cozza, is at the forefront of the movement to expose perceived hypocrisy on the part of the Boy Scouts of America. Cozza and others allege that when the BSA wants to discriminate, they act as a private organization; when they want money or the use of publicly-funded buildings, venues, or property, they act as a public organization.

[edit] State Constitutions

Some State Constitutions in the US require a religious test as a qualification for holding public office, however nearly all of these have been challenged in court and overturned. Because most State Constitutions can only be changed in special Constitutional Conventions, the text remains although it is no longer in force.

These states include:

• The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

• North Carolina's Constitution of 1971, Article 6 Sec. 8 states "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God....". This was challenged and overturned by Voswinkel v. Hunt (1979).

• South Carolina's Constitution, Article 6 Section 2: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

• Tennessee's Bill of Rights: Article 9, Section 2: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

[edit] Sweden

Even in Sweden, generally considered the most secularized country in the world,^[10] there exist laws that could be considered discriminatory towards atheists:

• Until the year 2000, Sweden had an official state church. Even after the law was changed, there is a special law that regulates the church and its affairs.^[11] Atheists claim that this violates secularism and therefore is discriminating against atheism.^{[citation needed]}

• In many public schools, the commencement after each semester is held in a church and a priest delivers a sermon. Sometimes schools go to church to celebrate holidays. When atheists have objected to this "tradition", politicians have defended it. On the 26th of October 2006, the Swedish minister of schools, Jan Björklund, stated that "We should not have any general rules in Sweden that you may not continue to have school commencements or ceremonies in a church any longer. There will definitely be no change on that issue."^[12]

• In October 2006, the Swedish Humanists filed a complaint to the ombudsmen of parliament^[13] and The Chancellor of Justice^[14] about sermons arranged by the parliament because, the Humanists claimed, it was contrary to secularization, and thus discriminating against non-Christians, including atheists. Both the ombudsmen and the chancellor concluded that they had no jurisdiction over the issue and chose not to comment further on the case. Thus, these sermons will continue.

• There is special funding to religious NGOs, "trossamfund", Lag (1998:1593) om trossamfund. According to Swedish law, in order to register a trossamfund one must organize divine services. Thus secular and/or atheist organisations who fill the same purpose as religious groups are discriminated from this funding. There is no equivalent funding for secular groups.^{[citation needed]}

^[15]

[edit] Atheism as immorality

The first attempts to define or develop a typology of atheism were in religious apologetics. These attempts were expressed in terms and in contexts that reflected the religious assumptions and prejudices of the writers. A diversity of atheist opinion has been recognized at least since Plato, and common distinctions have been established between practical atheism and speculative or contemplative atheism.

Practical atheism was said to be caused by moral failure, hypocrisy, willful ignorance and infidelity. Practical atheists were said to behave as though God, morals, ethics and social responsibility did not exist; they abandoned duty and embraced hedonism. Maritain's typology of atheism^[16] proved influential in Catholic circles; it was followed in the New Catholic Encyclopedia.^[17] He identified, in addition to practical atheism, pseudo-atheism and absolute atheism (and subdivided theoretical atheism in a way that anticipated Flew). For an atheist critique of Maritain, see Smith (1979, Chapter 1, Section 5).^[18]

According to the French Catholic philosopher Étienne Borne, 'Practical atheism is not the denial of the existence of God, but complete godlessness of action; it is a moral evil, implying not the denial of the absolute validity of the moral law but simply rebellion against that law.'^[19]

According to Karen Armstrong (1999):

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic... In his tract Atheism Closed and Open Anatomized (1634), John Wingfield claimed: 'the hypocrite is an Atheist; the loose wicked man is an open Atheist; the secure, bold and proud transgressor is an Atheist: he that will not be taught or reformed is an Atheist'. For the Welsh poet William Vaughan (1577 [sic]–1641), who helped in the colonization of Newfoundland, those who raised rents or enclosed commons were obvious atheists. The English dramatist Thomas Nashe (1567-1601) proclaimed that the ambitious, the greedy, the gluttons, the vainglorious and prostitutes were all atheists. The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist.^[20]

On the other hand, the existence of serious, speculative atheism was often denied. That anyone might reason their way to atheism was thought to be impossible. The existence of God was self-evident, and (apparently) necessary for the proper functioning of society. Thus, speculative atheism was collapsed into a form of practical atheism, and conceptualized as hatred of God or a fight against righteous social mores. This is why Borne finds it necessary to say, 'to put forward the idea, as some apologists rashly do, that there are no atheists except in name but only practical atheists who through pride or idleness disregard the divine law, would be, at least at the beginning of the argument, a rhetorical convenience or an emotional prejudice evading the real question.'^[21] Martin suggests that practical atheism would be better described as alienated theism.^[22]

[edit] Other pejorative definitions of atheism

When denial of the existence of 'speculative' atheism became unsustainable, atheism was nevertheless often repressed and criticized by narrowing definitions, applying charges of dogmatism, and otherwise misrepresenting atheist positions. One of the reasons for the popularity of euphemistic alternative terms like secularist, empiricist, agnostic, or bright is that atheism still has pejorative connotations arising from attempts at suppression and from its association with practical atheism. During the Cold War, U.S. politicians often characterized their foreign opponents as "Godless Communists," and godless is still used as an abusive epithet today.

Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert, the originators of the term bright, made this explicit in an essay published in 2003:

Our personal frustration regarding labels reached culmination last fall when we were invited to join a march on Washington as 'Godless Americans'. The causes of the march were worthy, and the march itself well-planned and conducted. However, to unite for common interests under a disparaging term like 'godless' (it also means 'wicked') seemed ludicrous! Why accept and utilize the very derogatory language that so clearly hampers our own capacity to play a positive and contributing role in our communities and in the nation and world?^[23]

That several religious groups have adopted the disparaging names handed to them as a badge of honour (the 'Methodists', for example) seems to have only increased their ire.

Gaskin (1989) abandoned the term atheism in favor of unbelief, citing 'the pejorative associations of the term, its vagueness, and later the tendency of religious apologists to define atheism so that no one could be an atheist...'^[24]

Despite these considerations, for others atheist has always been the preferred name. Charles Bradlaugh once said, in debate with George Jacob Holyoake, 10 March 1870:

I maintain that the opprobrium cast upon the word Atheism is a lie. I believe Atheists as a body to be men deserving respect... I do not care what kind of character religious men may put round the word Atheist, I would fight until men respect it.^[25]

[edit] See also

• Boy Scouts of America membership controversies
• Persecution of atheists

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

For more on repressive definitions of atheism, see:

• Berman, David (1990). A History of Atheism in Britain: from Hobbes to Russell. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-04727-7.
• Berman, David (1983). David Hume and the Suppression of Atheism. in Journal of the History of Philosophy, Vol. 21 (3), July 1983, p.375-387.
• Berman, David (1982). The Repressive Denials of Atheism in Britain in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol. 82c, (9), p.211-246.