Atheists America’s Most Distrusted Minority

Let's hear no nonsense about "Islamophobia" while reports like this can still make the news.

MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (3/20/2006) -- American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below 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.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.

Hmm, let's see, how many people have been slaughtered in the name of atheism? This is just more evidence for my belief in the stupidity of the crowd. I especially love the following:

Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.

Who knew all those priests and mullahs who've been in the news for abusing the trust held in them were atheists in disguise? And thank "God" that we now know about the criminal tendencies of the unbelieving types: that must explain why religion is an almost unheard of phenomenon in jailhouses all across America. As for the charge of "cultural elitism", well, one can hardly imagine a viler offense: the last thing we need is pointy-headed Proust-reading, foreign-language speaking, smelly cheese eating, latte-drinking intellectuals looking down their noses at football watching, Pabst Blue Ribbon drinking, God fearing, Real Americans™ ...

Comments

[Ross]

It's this kind of persecution that makes attacks by atheist sleeper cells so inevitable.

[Jim]

I saw once where in Roman times Christians were accused of atheism because they did not believe in the Roman gods, or at least wouldn't participate in the sacrifices, and were presumed to be depraved for that reason.

These people with such a low opinion of atheists may simply be "reasoning" that since their relgious beliefs are the basis of their morality, and atheists don't have religious beliefs, then they must not have a morality. Garbage in garbage out.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Isn't this discrimination the cause of the widely publicized anti-American terrorist attacks killing thousands that have been conducted by atheist groups to further their aims in setting up a God-free society?

[radek]

Can I be a pointy-headed foreign language speaking smelly cheese eating black coffee drinking intellectual and like PBR and football too (while not even bothering to think about non-materialistic issues)?

[Factory]

"Hmm, let's see, how many people have been slaughtered in the name of atheism?"
Well that one is easy.. surely you have similar arguments to the one below.. ?
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.bible/msg/cd643755648accfc

[Factory]

Erm, "surely you have similar" should be "surely you have read similar".

[Matt]

One thing about atheists though: I have never met any other type of person of any belief that keen to 'convert' people. Atheists seem quite militant to me.

[Andrew]

"I have never met any other type of person of any belief that keen to 'convert' people. Atheists seem quite militant to me."

Hm, yes... I, too, have frequently had atheist missionaries turn up on my doorstep handing out pamphlets on "Why There Is No God." And, of course, the International Association of Atheism requires all members to spend two years abroad trying to convert people to atheism...

[Abiola]

It's interesting how atheists are so often dismissed as "militant" for daring to air their views with even a tiny fraction of the energy the religious do theirs - where are the atheist Pope Benedicts, Archbishops of Canterbury, Jerry Falwells, Bob Dobsons, Al Azhar Universities, 700 Clubs, etc, etc. ad nauseum? Religious types - and not just oversensitive Muslims either - simply take it for granted that being inundated 24 hours a day by superstitious propaganda is the right and natural state of affairs, and when anyone dares to suggest otherwise they interpret it as some sort of assault on their psyches.

[Dan tdaxp]

" how many people have been slaughtered in the name of atheism?"

A couple tens of millions in Russia and China, a healthy fraction of the population in Cambodia...

"Who knew all those priests and mullahs who've been in the news for abusing the trust held in them were atheists in disguise? "

Doesn't follow. A meaningless paragraph.

[Delmore Macnamara]

"where are the atheist Pope Benedicts, Archbishops of Canterbury..."

so far as the stupider kind of Xtians are concerned Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury pretty much _is_ an atheist ...

[Abiola]

"A couple tens of millions in Russia and China, a healthy fraction of the population in Cambodia..."

What a load of rubbish. You might as well say "capitalism" has killed millions because Hitler believed in private enterprise. Do I, Radek or Scott Wickstein look like communists to you? The fallacy you're pushing here is formally *exactly* the same as the ridiculous "Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are Nazis" argument.

"Doesn't follow. A meaningless paragraph."

Yeah, you wouldn't get it, seeing as you even confuse atheism with communism ... Let me put it in simpler terms for your sake: there is not an *iota* of evidence that religious believers are in any way more "moral" and "upright" than those who don't buy into mystical fairy tales, while there is no shortage of evidence that the "holiest" of the holy believers are very often thieves, sadists and sexual perverts of every description: everywhere around the world you look at priests, you find amongst them numerous molesters, child rapists, embezzlers, etc., and that's true whether we're talking Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Shinto or whatever. If religion is so vital to morality, why aren't those who lead it more often paragons of virtue?

[Jim]

"If religion is so vital to morality, why aren't those who lead it more often paragons of virtue?"

You seem to be assuming that religion implies or requires a belief on a god. It doesn't. Etymologically reliogion is just a system of rites whose common observance and the ethnics they imply hold a society together. Rome worked this way for a while, and this is also a good description of the Confucian system. Ancestor worship was encouraged not because the ancestors were divine but because reverence for one's elders implied revernece for one's rulers. Customs or ceremonies such as the flag slute or Thanksgiving dinner have a similar effect in the US, althought he desired result is social cohesion rather than reverence for rulers.

The point is that atheists do have a belief system; they have morals and these morals cannot be derived from a cold-eyed rationalism and these morals are often at least as good as anyone else's.

[Dan tdaxp]

"You might as well say "capitalism" has killed millions because Hitler believed in private enterprise."

If Hitler was a capitalist, you would have an argument. He wasn't, and you don't.

"Do I, Radek or Scott Wickstein look like communists to you?"

You certainly don't, Abiola. I've admired your writing for quite a while.

"The fallacy you're pushing here is formally *exactly* the same as the ridiculous "Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are Nazis" argument."

You're thinking of the genetic fallacy, and it doesn't apply. You asked "how many people have been slaughtered in the name of atheism," and I answered. You introduced the genetic fallacy, not me.

"there is not an *iota* of evidence that religious believers are in any way more "moral" and "upright" "

To the extent that religion increases horizontal control [1], of course there's evidence. To the extent religion, doesn't, of course there's not.

" If religion is so vital to morality, why aren't those who lead it more often paragons of virtue?"

Considering the Hobbesian nature of man, I'm not surprised that none of us are models of excellent virtue.

[1] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/04/12/controls_vertical-horizontal_strong-weak_implicit-explicit_s.html

[Frank McGahon]

'You're thinking of the genetic fallacy, and it doesn't apply. You asked "how many people have been slaughtered in the name of atheism," and I answered. You introduced the genetic fallacy, not me.'

Not so fast. Those people were killed by (nominal) atheists in the names of Communism/the Revolution/Cultural revolution (as were many more by nominal atheists in the name of Nazism/the Fatherland) and not in the name of atheism per se so, yes, you were guilty of the genetic fallacy.

[gene berman]

I've been waiting for Abiola to set the this matter aright but, for reason unknown to me, he hasn't addressed it.

Hitler was a socialist who believed in all-round control of economic activity by the state, though not via the method of the Bolsheviks (government ownership of all means of production and the vast bulk of private property); his choice of method was (called in his time) the "Hindenburg Plan," in which the state achieved economic and social goals by all-round regulation of enterprise and economic activity. Hitler's plans were as far-reachingly inimical to the capitalist system as were those of the Bolsheviks he opposed, despised, and fought.

But, in the popular view, including many of the businessmen and labor leaders of the day, Hitler was, indeed, an ideal, if not the ideal, champion of capitalism, as were, to a lesser extent, those somewhat less important national leaders styled both by themselves and others as "fascists." Their
tie to capitalism was not in adherence to
niceties of theory or definition but in supporting previously-existing conditions and relationships; it is for this reason that such leaders are sometimes also called (and also partly erroneously) "conservative."

Hitler was admired throughout the world for a "businesslike" approach to management of economic affairs: they continue to be the norm for such management over all the world now called "capitalist," despite the fact that such methods have NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH CAPITALISM or the capitalist system.

Theory and definition need have little to do with public perception; to paraphrase Shakespeare only slightly, "the propaganda's the thing!" In the case at hand, the propaganda served by Hitler--the idea that his regime was a respecter of the private-property rights of industry titans and the common folk alike--served also socialists of the communist type, especially later, when
the Third Reich and the stunning atrocities revealed could be laid at the door (and continuously reinforced by citation of similarities and parallels) as the result of "capitalism." Though not true, it still works as a propaganda tool in the arsenal of leftists. And, in this context, it is even entirely immaterial whether Hitler believed or not one way or the other.

Abiola is 100% correct in his statement that "you might as well say..." None of the killing by the Nazis, though associated with "private enterprise" by the enemies of private enterprise was done for the sake of private enterprise or capitalism. Some of those making such assertion are aware of its duplicity and consider it justifiable in furtherance of their own political aims--a method among many for influencing the slower and the credulous. Many others simply repeat what they've heard (and believe simply because they've never heard anything to inform them to the contrary).

The entire point is that, in the entire history of the world, virtually nobody has ever been killed in the name of capitalism except some posing some perceived threat--usually of a revolutionary or public disorder sort--to an existing order. Capitalism might be introduced where formerly unknown, attendant on a forcible rearrangement of property relations--but deaths would not have occurred in connection with capitalism but by conquest due to some other motivation. Even in the famous case of trade introduced--the "opening" of Japan by a "show of force" by Perry, it is likely that the deciding factor was not so much the force represented by the ships as the far greater in their own population likely to become restive if not given the proffered opportunities to better their existence: "once they've been to the city, etc." (In re atheism to follow)

[Scott Wickstein]

Actually I often do look like a communist in that I have, I am frequently told, very poor dress sense.

[radek]

I've considered (and due to lack of hard empirical evidence neither rejected nor failed to reject) the idea that being religious makes one act more moral towards those of the same religious persuasion but more immoral towards those outside of it. So in pure utiliterian terms it could be a wash or go either way. This of course assumes there's some morality independent of metaphysics.

Which is sort of the second point. If you do think there's morality independent of metaphysics, say "suffering sucks" then as an atheist your moral imperative to act morally is greater than if you belong to one of the many religions which promise that somehow all the bad shit gets compensated after death, be it in heaven or through reincarnation at a higher level (and what always bothered me about most reincarnation beliefs is that they seem to imply that those whom bad shit happens too deserve it). If you're an aetheist, if a child cries, that's it, no Sugarcandy Mountain where it will all be made better. So if you're a moral atheist, you only get this chance to make it better.

[Matt]

Dont get me wrong. I have met militant and annoying christians as well, but atheists are just as hearty in denouncing religious types as fools or worse. Yes, atheists dont turn up on your door step to try to convert you, but I find that most atheists tend to be mostly against one type of religion (often christianity) as a reaction to their upbrining. You rarely hear atheists rip into Taoism or other religions they are not immediately familiar with.

[Abiola]

"I've considered (and due to lack of hard empirical evidence neither rejected nor failed to reject) the idea that being religious makes one act more moral towards those of the same religious persuasion but more immoral towards those outside of it"

My suspicion is that, like communism, this is one of those things that don't scale: it's easy enough to make such distinctions when you're living in a relatively small community, especially one that feels persecuted by outsiders, but if yours is a superstition shared by millions, then at most the sole deference you'll pay your fellow believers is in hesitating a little before treating them like the subhuman wretches you might consider "infidels" to be.

"If you do think there's morality independent of metaphysics, say "suffering sucks" then as an atheist your moral imperative to act morally is greater than if you belong to one of the many religions which promise that somehow all the bad shit gets compensated after death, be it in heaven or through reincarnation at a higher level"

Indeed, and is it not in fact a much sterner testament to one's moral integrity that one is willing to do the right thing *without* the fear of eternal punishment or the promise of eternal reward?

"what always bothered me about most reincarnation beliefs is that they seem to imply that those whom bad shit happens too deserve it"

Which is precisely why such beliefs are dearly loved by those at the top of societies in which they are widespread: every Brahmin would like to think his good fortune is no more than his due for past virtue.

"I find that most atheists tend to be mostly against one type of religion (often christianity) as a reaction to their upbrining. You rarely hear atheists rip into Taoism or other religions they are not immediately familiar with."

But isn't this perfectly natural? What other religions can they be expected to rail against other than the ones whose many failings they know best? The fact is that the average Westerner has to go far out of his way to encounter Taoism in practice, while it's all one can do to avoid Christian nutbars and Islamic lunatics in the papers, on the airwaves and in the streets; objecting to this is no more reasonable than objecting to my, say, constantly bashing Blair's Labour government and never saying anything about the wrongdoings of the Prime Minister of Latvia.

In any case, it isn't even true that the negative attention directed at primarily at Christianity is unwarranted: today's neutered mainline Christianity may be an inoffensive thing, but the Christianity of yesteryear was as bloodstained and intolerant as Islam at its worst, while listening to many American fundamentalists, one can't escape the impression that it wouldn't take much license for them to bring back witch burnings and auto da fés. Christianity isn't alone in this regard either - just look at the things most people have to say about Scientology.

As far as the relationship between religions and violence goes, I have to say that the three monotheistic religions* are by far the most dangerous of the superstitions I'm aware of, far more so than Taoism, Buddhism or those other traditions which don't get bashed much in the West: the idea that there is just one "god", that he is *your* "god", and that he demands that everyone else pay him due in *exactly* the same way *you* do, is an excellent recipe for intolerance and brutality.

*Yes, Judaism used to be ultra-violent too, until the Romans killed off that strain, and the very existence of Israel with it. The Pentateuch is one long celebration of barbaric conquest.