Myth:
Atheists are bigoted against Christians.
Response:
This myth is similar to the claim that atheists are anti-Christian because of the time they spend on critiquing Christianity; it is, however, a more general assertion and merits being addressed separately. Is it a legitimate complaint that atheists are bigoted against Christians? That is to say, are atheists intolerant of Christianity, Christian beliefs, Christian institutions, etc.? Even if this is true, what impact if any does this have on atheism and atheists' critiques of Christianity?
It must be remembered that some atheists come from a Christian background where they were discouraged from doubting and questioning. Once they started to do so anyway, however, the found that they had been deceived and lied to by religious leaders. This can result in a lingering resentment and even hatred of the religious beliefs and power structures which allowed such deception to occur and continues allowing it today. At the very least, experiences like this can lead to a phase in a person's life when they are angry with and resentful towards both religion generally and Christianity in particular.
Some continue to suffer from discrimination and abuse from family, friends, or colleagues. They often feel unable to even reveal that they are atheists for fear of reprisals and ostracization. In such situations, it simply isn't possible to expect a person to have warm, fuzzy feelings about a religion which is used, from their perspective, to foster hatred and repression towards them simply because they are unable or unwilling to adopt that religion. When this happens, it's possible for bigotry to develop — and so, yes, it is surely true that some atheists are bigoted towards Christians and Christianity.
However, it is important to note that not every act of opposing Christianity and Christians is an example of bigotry. A good example of how the "bigotry" card can be overplayed comes from Florida. In 2002, Governor Jeb Bush appointed as head of Florida's Child Welfare Agency Jerry Regier, a man who had in the past advocated spanking even if it produced serious bruises and welts, recreating American families based on "biblical norms" and that women are naturally "helpmates" to husbands and hence should only work at home.
It should be no surprise that this created a storm of protest; in response, Bush asserted that it was all a consequence of a "soft bigotry that is emerging against people of faith." In other words, people objecting to a man who advocates spanking until it causes welts being put in charge of child welfare for the entire state are only exhibiting "bigotry" towards religious people. Such an assertion implicitly denies the very possibility that rational, civil adults could have valid objections to this person's philosophies and ideas. It also implies that only those without faith would object to Regier's appointment, completely discounting even the possibility that a "person of faith" might dispute the suitability of a person with Regier's views for the post in question.
Thus, we can see the problem inherent in the bigotry card: when objections and complaints are labeled as "bigotry," they are immediately dismissed as being unworthy of serious consideration. They are no longer "real" objections. Those complaining are no longer worthy of addressing. It marks an end to political discussion and a beginning of demonization.
Underneath such arguments people are committing a logical fallacy: it's presumed that when person A is bigoted against X, then anything they negative they say about X can be dismissed as just an expression of bigotry. This is called the Genetic Fallacy: dismissing an argument or idea on the basis of where it comes from rather than on an evaluation of the argument or idea itself. Even if a person is bigoted against Christianity, this doesn't mean that they have no legitimate criticisms to make about Christians, Christian beliefs, or Christian institutions.
Genuine bigots exist, there is no question about that; but when accusing a person of bigotry, it is important to be sure that dismissing their position in such a manner is actually justified. Jeb Bush obviously wasn't justified and simply found the "bigotry" label a convenient way to avoid admitting that critics might have a legitimate complaint. How many Christians who say that a particular atheist is being bigoted towards Christianity are making a legitimate observation, and how many are simply trying to find a way to avoid that atheist's critiques?
