Is Bigotry Against Atheists OK?

In many quarters of society, bigotry and discrimination against atheists is considered acceptable. People who wouldn't dream of treating Jews or blacks worse than white Christians will think nothing of treating atheists as if they didn't merit the same basic social or civil rights. Such attitudes reach right up to the presidency.

Andrew Sullivan posts an email he received recently over comments of his about President Bush's statements that an atheist couldn't possibly make good a president:

"Doesn't Bush (or any other religious person, even one who happens to BE president) have a right to suggest that he sees faith as so integral to proper perspective that he would most likely not support the presidential candidacy of an atheist? I am no bigot or religious fanatic, but I happen to agree. I might be willing to make an exception for the right person, but as a rule I will not vote for a president who has no faith convictions. I think it is human nature to suspect that people who differ from us in so fundamental a way cannot be trusted to make "presidential" decisions. I am fond of any number of faithless people, but I am quite convinced they have made a serious miscalculation in a fundamental matter. I certainly know many atheists or convicted agnostics who don't trust Bush primarily because they cannot relate to his faith life, and they do not trust him as a result. They have every right to feel that way, and vote accordingly. Votes in a democracy pivot on these kinds of concerns all the time, and they are perfectly legitimate, whether they come out of ideological, religious, or philosophical convictions of citizens."

Let's change a few words in the above to make it about race rather than atheism and see what we get...

"Doesn't Bush (or any other white person, even one who happens to BE president) have a right to suggest that he sees race as so integral to proper perspective that he would most likely not support the presidential candidacy of a non-white? I am no bigot or racial fanatic, but I happen to agree. I might be willing to make an exception for the right person, but as a rule I will not vote for a president who has no white heritage. I think it is human nature to suspect that people who differ from us in so fundamental a way cannot be trusted to make "presidential" decisions. I am fond of any number of non-white people, but I am quite convinced they have a serious fault in a fundamental matter. I certainly know many blacks or Hispanics who don't trust Bush primarily because they cannot relate to his racial heritage, and they do not trust him as a result. They have every right to feel that way, and vote accordingly. Votes in a democracy pivot on these kinds of concerns all the time, and they are perfectly legitimate, whether they come out of ideological, religious, or philosophical convictions of citizens."

Does it still sound reasonable? Well, let's make it about religion instead:

"Doesn't Bush (or any other Christian person, even one who happens to BE president) have a right to suggest that he sees Christianity as so integral to proper perspective that he would most likely not support the presidential candidacy of a non-Christian? I am no bigot or religious fanatic, but I happen to agree. I might be willing to make an exception for the right person, but as a rule I will not vote for a president who is not Christian. I think it is human nature to suspect that people who differ from us in so fundamental a way cannot be trusted to make "presidential" decisions. I am fond of any number of non-Christians, but I am quite convinced they have made a serious miscalculation in a fundamental matter. I certainly know many Jews or Buddhists who don't trust Bush primarily because they cannot relate to his religious faith, and they do not trust him as a result. They have every right to feel that way, and vote accordingly. Votes in a democracy pivot on these kinds of concerns all the time, and they are perfectly legitimate, whether they come out of ideological, religious, or philosophical convictions of citizens."

Does it sound reasonable now? No, not to me either. This kind of bigotry against blacks, Hispanics, Jews, or Buddhists would be unacceptable for most people — but as soon as it is about atheist or agnostics, it is suddenly acceptable. Why? Because atheists are fundamentally despised by people who proclaim that, sure, they have a couple of atheist friends but they wouldn't let their sister many one of them and they sure wouldn't vote for one.

To his credit, Andrew Sullivan recognizes just how wrong and noxious this bigotry is, responding to the original message thus:

I disagree. One of the tasks of liberal citizenship is to eschew our religious convictions as guides to the equality of other citizens. It is, in my view, a failure of the liberal temperament to regard some who have a different faith or no faith as somehow less qualified for public office, let alone the highest public office. When the president himself says this, it's even more troubling. But Bush has never understood classical liberalism. He is a conservative, religious statist, who sees himself as the personal guardian of the country. He's Bismarck with a penchant for massive government debt. Hence the secrecy, condescension and occasional lapses like his subjective statement ruling atheists out of the presidency. But we knew this already.

I think it will be a while before people start to realize that bigotry against atheists and agnostics isn't "OK" and that we deserve the same social and civil rights as everyone else. Legal discrimination against us has ended, but informal and social discrimination is still quite strong.

Read More:

• Atheism 101
• Agnosticism 101
• Defining Atheism
• Questions About Atheism
• Myths About Atheism
• Atheism in Society
• News About Atheism and Atheists
• Rebuttals to Attacks on Atheism