One of the common claims that has been amplified by the Dawkins/Hitchens PR campaign is that "atheism is a civil rights issue." (For an example, see the comments section of this recent post.)
This false spin serves as a very effective frame device for radicalizing a base of atheists into an ever more militant "us versus them" rhetoric, an interpretation that is used to justify sophomoric and polarizing attacks on religious Americans.
Indeed, "atheism is a civil rights issue" is a familiar catchphrase that comes up in the feeding frenzy of complaints and insults that typify the echo chamber of the Atheist Net Roots, including several of the sites here at Scienceblogs.com. (See this discussion here.)
Yet is atheism really a civil rights issue? The answer is a resounding "No." In a column at Free Inquiry magazine, DJ Grothe, vice president for public outreach at the Center for Inquiry, lays out the case against atheism as a civil rights issue, and argues as I do, that atheists don't face a civil rights battle but rather a public image problem. (To Grothe's argument, I would add that this image problem is only made worse by the Dawkins/Hitchens PR campaign.)
Comments
He said, safe and sound on the East Coast. "Those silly atheists in Oklahoma are making it all up-- the harassment, losing their jobs, getting kicked out of apartments. What a bunch of liars."
**VOMIT**
Posted by: ERV | June 28, 2007 4:11 PM
Ah, I see you are using that ever-popular framing tactic of only presenting one side. Unfortunately, this is also one of the less honest tactics in framing. If you had chosen a more fair approach, you'd have linked to Eddie Tabash's response:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/tabash_24_4.htm
I actually agree more with Grothe and Dacey (yes, there were two authors), but when I wrote about the issue I made sure I linked to and quoted both sides:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/073451.htm
I also pointed out why I think Tabash had a legitimate argument. It may not be technically correct to use the label "civil rights movement," but given the widespread distrust, dislike, bigotry, and even discrimination, it's not at all difficult to understand why people would be drawn to it.
Posted by: Austin Cline | June 28, 2007 4:18 PM
ERV,
I refer you to Grothe's column. Care to offer evidence for your claim?
To our knowledge, there is no such thing as "atheist bashing." If there were cases of such harm, one would expect to hear about them in the media and the courts, or at least in the common knowledge of unbelievers. So, where are the cases? On many occasions we have put this question to leaders in the nonreligious community and have never been presented with a single compelling example.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | June 28, 2007 4:18 PM
One
Posted by: justawriter | June 28, 2007 4:29 PM
I agree that the atheism problem is more of a public image problem than a civil rights problem. The difference between atheism and the civil rights battles of the twentieth century is that atheists already have the same rights as theists - at least in the US. That does not mean that sometimes those civil rights are violated because the individual is atheist.
Posted by: Brian Thompson | June 28, 2007 4:32 PM
Two
With cites from a dozen states.
Posted by: justawriter | June 28, 2007 4:36 PM
I would say that atheism is a civil rights issue in the sense that atheists, and other unpopular, non-mainstream groups (homosexuals and Wiccans, to name just a couple) must be vigilant against attempts by the likes of George W and his base to reduce us to second class citizens.
I would hope that ensuring Constitutional prohibtions against endorsement should be enough for this.
As for public image, yes, there is no doubt that atheists have a poor image in most peoples' minds. However, this is not due (at least not entirely) to the atheists themselves. Atheists have been vilified and stereotyped in knee-jerk fashion for who knows how long. Yet when was the last time an atheist flew a plane into a building, or blew himself up in a crowded market, or wished damnation and suffering upon a homosexual?
The religious have felt free to condemn atheism since the dawn of time. It's about time that religious claims were subjected to critical examination and the self-contradictions and dubious origins of the Bible and other sacred texts revealed.
Why should atheists be the ones who always defer and make nice? Every Sunday morning, pastors hold no punches in their condemnation of atheists. I applaud Dawkins and Hitchens for not mincing words and calling "bullshit" when they see it.
Posted by: ZacharySmith | June 28, 2007 4:36 PM
Atheists have the same civil rights as theists, a very different situation from the historical examples of women, blacks, or today, gays. There will always be cases of discrimination that need to be guarded against and watchdogged, but to argue that atheists are the new suffragists or akin to those who battled segregation is just a wrong headed way to justify sophomoric attacks and complaints that only do further damage to the public image of atheists.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | June 28, 2007 4:40 PM
Zachary,
This is just more of the same black & white rhetoric that inaccurately paints *all* religious Americans and leaders as hostile to non-believers.
You wrote:
Every Sunday morning, pastors hold no punches in their condemnation of atheists. I applaud Dawkins and Hitchens for not mincing words and calling "bullshit" when they see it.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | June 28, 2007 4:42 PM
Three
Posted by: justawriter | June 28, 2007 4:47 PM
Matt -
You have a point, I was too sweeping in my rhetoric. I agree that certainly not all religious leaders are hostile to non-believers.
However, I think you'd agree that some very well-known and influential religious leaders are indeed hostile to non-belief (and things that they wrongly interpret as stemming from non-belief, such as evolution). The late Jerry Falwell comes to mind. And I'm sure that there are at least a couple small town pastors out there doing the same.
Perhaps I am wrong as I probably do not follow things as closely as I should, but it seems to me that Dawkins (Hitchens maybe less so) are more civil in their engagement of believers than say, Falwell or Pat Robertson are when they engage non-believers.
Posted by: Z | June 28, 2007 4:58 PM
Acceptance of atheistic people is mostly a public relations problem in the US (different matter in Indonesia and some other countries); however, there are some civil rights issues though those are usually shared with members of various minority religions (attempts to have government directed prayers in public schools, government funded faith-based programs that require or encourage participants or employees to belong to a particular faith(s)).
Some State Constitutions have various bits discriminating against atheists.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm
these are probably moot due to various Supreme Court rulings. However it was only 13 years ago the South Carolina Supreme Court had to tell the South Carolina government it couldn't require someone to swear by God in order to be a notary public (Silverman vs Gov. Carroll A. Campbell and Secretary of State Jim Miles).
ERV was probably referring in particular to a case in Oklahoma involving the Smalkowski family. http://www.jewsonfirst.org/06b/smalkowski.html
Posted by: Erp | June 28, 2007 5:02 PM
It is not a civil rights issue. However, I understand why people think it is.
Why? Because "whites only" admittance to privately owned restaurants and the refusal to hire black workers at private companies wasn't a civil rights issue either.
Discrimination against people by other people is not a civil rights issue. Discrimination entrenched in law or in government agencies IS, however. But we've been calling so many things civil rights issues that aren't for such a long time that we've forgotten what it actually means.
Posted by: Renee | June 28, 2007 5:06 PM
I appreciate a civil forum to debate this.
I disagree with Nisbet that Atheism is not an civil rights issue. I would agree if we had this conversation in Canada, or in the US ten years ago. But today it is becoming one. I see the trajectory aimed towards an increasingly worsening prejudice in this country against Atheists, and I think we should all try to reverse this trend.
Don't be blinded to the erosion of a group's civil rights under the assumption that progress on these issues is always in a forward direction. Religiosity in this country is increasing, it is becoming far more beligerent than it has been in the past, and it is eroding the rights and freedoms of Atheists.
When I moved from Ontario, Canada to Houston, Texas, I went from being a comfortable Atheist enjoying debate with believers and non-believers alike, to a condition of fear. I never mention at work or in "polite company" that I don't believe in god. The reaction is swift. Business relationships wither and disappear. Friendships are strained. Invitations dry up.
It's not from me shouting from the rooftops either. It's simple things like answering the question: "Which church do you go to?"
So long as this nation's president and his staff can open their daily business with prayer, they are excluding Atheists from their clique. So long as businessmen can and do decide they don't trust me enough anymore based only on my religious beliefs, I am being discriminated against. So long as the president of my company is a devout churchgoer and so long as his employees indirectly pressure me to attend his church to progress in my career, this is a civil rights issue. These subtle things are exactly what blacks, women, gays and other groups have battled for so long to stop.
It's very easy to sit safe and sound in your majority social group and claim the discrimination doesn't exist. Maybe you can sit in the ivory tower where Atheists are commonplace and claim nothing is wrong.
You have to live on the other side to know this claim is false.
Posted by: Corey | June 28, 2007 5:09 PM
Erp, for one example, yes. Discrimination against atheists was also profiled on a local (KFOR) news station not too long ago-- The video might still be up. Examples such as threats to loved ones, pets, self, losing jobs, etc.
Im having trouble imagining this only occurs in Oklahoma.
Posted by: ERV | June 28, 2007 5:16 PM
Renee,
Perhaps there is a difference between freedom from discrimination and civil rights. However, when the one begins to erode you tend to lose the other too.
I use the two terms interchangeably because I consider them ultimately to be manifestations of the same prejudice.
Posted by: Corey | June 28, 2007 5:21 PM
The reason there aren't as many public issues with discrimination against atheists as one might think given the common ministerial rhetoric out there (nice job of moving the goalposts there Matt), seems rather obvious: it is easy to hide, and we all learn rather early on that we should.
We are not like blacks in that one can't tell we are atheists by looking at us, and we are not like homosexuals in that we have no public meeting places bashers can go to find us.
But when you have a slobbering football coach scream threateningly at you when he notices you aren't saying the Lord's Prayer with everyone else, when you have a good friend stop talking to you just for asking that she not prosyletize in emails, when your good friend is told to leave her uncle's house and never return because she told him she was an atheist, when your girlfriend says "you aren't an atheist" with the same tone that she might say "you aren't a bad person", when your mother apologizes for you to family and tells them you really aren't an atheist, when your wife has to explain to your otherwise intelligent inlaws that you do not in fact eat babies, you learn to just shut up about it. The president claiming you can't be a good citizen (as Bush Sr. did) certainly doesn't help matters any, nor does the fact that you were portrayed as the hero in popular entertainment 0% up until recently when the figure has spiked up to a scary 5% or so. This has an effect on people's views.
It's not complicated reasoning really. If friends and family are willing to ostracize you over your atheism, what might people who don't give a rats ass about you do? Most of us would rather not find out. In that way, the best analogy is probably to people with HIV. They too are demonized beyond reason, but you don't hear a lot of cases of people being discriminated against for it because they can choose not to tell anyone, and stay hidden.
Now have at the semantic argument over whether or not bigotry agaist atheists qualifies as a civil rights issue if you choose. I do not. The reality of the discrimination is enough for me to make it an issue worthy of addressing in our society.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 28, 2007 5:33 PM
Time to disagree with everyone slightly.
I have a tough time believing that you can effectively argue that it's not at least partly a civil rights issue, based upon the fact that you could use the same 'Everyone has all the same rights' argument against women at this point, and yet you seem to accept women as a discriminated/civil rights concerned class (based on, apparently, the evidence of the pay discrepancies, among other things.) There is a norm, in the US, just like being straight, or white, that involves being Christian. And others have linked laws and behaviors of varying degrees that support that (although not to the same degree, which I'll get to in a second.) The argument that you link is also not a compelling argument _against_ that very common base of discrimination (The 'You weren't discriminated against like black people' argument is never really a fair one to make, and is mainly dismissive), and I imagine you could effectively substitute any number of not-very-discriminated-against groups in it and have it read about the same. So I'm not seeing why it's convincing. Now, if you're going to argue that 'discrimination' does not mean 'civil rights' in all cases, that's different, and neither the article nor you go into that in detail. (I think Renee brings this up quite clearly: confluence of civil rights and discrimination.)
_However_, that does not necessarily mean that 1) The injustice is the same (common metaphor fallacy, on both sides), which is a problem for everyone involved in dealing with it 2) The radical frame is necessarily a good idea. I am all in with anger against injustice. But the radical frame seems to me to be an attack frame, beyond what feminists or black rights minded types would typically assert. Perhaps this is what you're seeing in your framing analysis.
To show this, I'll compare feminism to 'radical atheism.' The standard feminist phrasing of the problem is 'It's not you, it's the patriarchy' because the power is not with the person's beliefs in singular (although there is a problem with believing that women are worse than men), it's with the power structure that perpetuates it. The radical atheist (slash science) phrasings I can find say, 'It _is_ you. If you believe in religion, you are our enemy, inherently wrong.' It does not take much reading of, say, PZ, to see him make it clear that anything that isn't atheism is 'wrong'. That is not a view that allows for anything but atheism, which is not the same as someone who believes in equality, but isn't atheist. At least, that is how I perceive it, and the problem with it.
I have absolutely no doubt there are atheists that do not believe that (considering that people on Scienceblogs would classify me as atheist) but they are not the ones I am considering in the 'radical atheist' mindset.
Thoughts?
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | June 28, 2007 5:36 PM
ScienceAvenger,
You wrote:
The reality of the discrimination is enough for me to make it an issue worthy of addressing in our society.
---
Which is exactly my point. On occasion, atheists are discriminated against because they have a public image problem, and the Dawkins/Hitchens' PR campaign, by radicalizing a movement of attacks and complaints, only makes this public image problem worse, generating more discrimination.
Which also gets at a point I made in an earlier post this week: Instead of mobilizing a movement of sophomoric attacks and complaints that paints as black all religious Americans, atheists need to focus on offering a positive vision of what it means to live life without religion; both in the popular entertainment media but also as leaders who span divides in our communities, (instead of just generating further polarization.)
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | June 28, 2007 5:42 PM
Oooooh...NOW I understand what "framing" is. It's when you do something like follow every use of the word "atheist" with the phrase "sophomoric attacks."
I was already an atheist as a freshman, however.
Posted by: CCP | June 28, 2007 5:57 PM
If it takes discrimination against people by the government, than it IS an issue of civil rights. Anyone remember the Bush office of faith based religion only funding. Think they would give any money to a non-religious group?
Posted by: iRobot | June 28, 2007 5:57 PM
Ah, I see you are using that ever-popular framing tactic of only presenting one side. Unfortunately, this is also one of the more sophomoric tactics in framing. If you had chosen a more fair approach, you'd have linked to Eddie Tabash's response:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/tabash_24_4.htm
I actually agree more with Grothe and Dacey (yes, there were two authors), but when I wrote about the issue I made sure I linked to and quoted both sides:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/073451.htm
I also pointed out why I think Tabash had a legitimate argument. It may not be technically correct to use the label "civil rights movement," but given the widespread distrust, dislike, bigotry, and even discrimination, it's not at all difficult to understand why people would be drawn to it.
Posted by: Austin Cline | June 28, 2007 5:58 PM
Nisbet,
Why should Atheists have to explicitly offer "a positive vision of what it means to live life without religion"? In reference to your earlier post about Atheists and charitable giving, perhaps we are already doing a lot in much better ways, it's just not evident.
If you live a life of science, you tend to believe in empirical evidence, no? Doesn't the evidence indicate (I'm thinking economics here) that being a self-interested actor in our economy provides the most to the general welfare? An income transfer can't hold a candle to technological progress and a growing economy in terms of pulling the poor out of poverty. That's evidence. So why should I waste my time giving food to the poor when I could be working?
I think the larger problem is that many people lacking in the big-picture view obtained through hard study think that some outwardly visible act is more important than a longer-term quiet progress. Therein lies the problem. Many Athiests have made that heavy investment in study and reasoning to arrive at their beliefs. Have all the Christians out there discriminating against us done the same? Pffft.
My very religious father-in-law can look down his nose at me because I don't go to church and don't give nickels to beggars, but I have evidence that his work as a mechanical engineer and my work as a software developer has done far more over time than any public faux-altruistic display of charity ever will. I respect him for his hard work. I want to be respected for my hard work. I want to have a sensible conversation about the best way to help the poor. But he won't invest the time the determine - from evidence - what that best way is... he just knows... because he's had it handed down from on high.
You can call this caustic and say it's not in my best interests as an Atheist to be so ornery, but I answer that it's expressely because I've invested the time to rationally arrive at my beliefs that I do NOT wish to participate in this feel-good piecemeal charity. And of course, now I can't be trusted by any proper Christian.
Posted by: Corey | June 28, 2007 6:04 PM
Four
Posted by: justawriter | June 28, 2007 10:17 PM
Mecha,
Thank you for your insightful characterization of radical atheism. Every time I (a Christian) read Dawkins or PZ, I DO think they are saying to me, "It _is_ you. If you believe in religion, you are our enemy." If this is what they say, but then demand equality and fair treatment, then it seems they are employing some of the same divisive tactics that Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians use.
I think that Atheists do need to improve their image, and as several folks have told me recently, moderate Christians need to increase their interactions with others. Reasonable people (Atheists and Christians and whoever) tend to enjoy conversations with other reasonable people.
A little work on both sides (say the 'moderate' Christians and the 'moderate' atheists) would go a long way. It is easy for both sides to be characterized/caricatured by their extremist spokesmen. It will be more rewarding when the people actually willing to talk without 'winning' find each other.
Posted by: Thomas Robey | June 28, 2007 10:25 PM
Isn't image the issue for any civil rights fight? A group needs to rise above the public perception of their difference formt he mainstream and be seen as individuals. Unfortunately the public only sees the offended athiest not the thoughtful tolerant majority.
Posted by: toegazer | June 28, 2007 11:09 PM
Well, I made sure to locate a few concrete examples before I popped off. I wouldn't want to be accused of not having specifics.
I would say the weakness of the argument being presented is that discrimination against atheists is part of the larger history of religious discrimination in the U.S. If atheists face fewer challenges than other disfavored groups, I freely give credit to those who challenged established religious discrimination since 1789. At one time, catholics, jews and atheists were all denied the right to hold public office, among other statutory and economic insults. I don't think it is too far a stretch to say that if atheism is not a civil rights issue then religious discrimination is not a civil rights issue. It is a a reductio ad absurdum situation.
Remnants of these historical attitude still exist. I think the second link I provided shows pretty convincingly that de jure discrimination does exist in at least the area of family. You can have your children taken away from you in some jurisdictions primarily on the grounds that you don't believe in god, at least in some jurisdictions. Eh, might be a problem to some people.
Posted by: justawriter | June 28, 2007 11:32 PM
Matt - I find the relationship between your characterization of what the new atheists are saying and the reality to be tenuous at best. I go into more detail on my blog.
Corey - fabulous stuff.
The biggest problem atheists have is somewhat self-imposed. By hiding it in our own self-interests, we allow the lying preachers who paint us as monsters to supply the image of who we are. We should be as public as we can within whatever constraints our lives place on us. I for instance, blog under a pseudonym because I work for a Christian company, and yes, there would be reprisals if my atheism were known. But in my personal life, I treat it as any other fact about myself, and talk about it as appropriate.
Be prepared, however, to discover bigotries in your friends and family you never knew was there. It can be quite illuminating.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 29, 2007 12:23 AM
I don't think politicians or anyone should make a big deal about what you believe. So what if you are atheist in America. You have a right to that. Just don't be one of those narrow-minded atheists, who dismisses anything remotley religious. Remeber based on a religion's history, well the not the religion, the people that follow the religion, their actions have proven every religion to have its faults.
Posted by: chips | June 29, 2007 12:40 AM
Five. (PDF)
If you are a theist, you get a right of conscience that requires a compelling government interest to be infringed. If you are a non-theist, tough luck. How can that not be a civil rights issue?
I also love the way Nisbet is just ignoring the examples.
Posted by: Ahcuah | June 29, 2007 1:03 AM
Matthew Nisbett wrote:
I suppose it's Dawkins fault that millions of Christians believe people who don't accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior are going to hell? And that if he would only just be quiet (or at least "nicer"), all of us other atheists would suddenly find the world a friendly, welcoming place of tolerance and decency?
I also find your attempts to minimize discrimmination both disheartening and disgusting. Instead of just admitting that it sometimes happens in the context of civil rights (you have examples posted right here in this thread) you say it's all just an image problem that atheists are primarily responsible for. Is this the same image problem that, say, American Muslims or feminists have?
You wrote:
On occasion, atheists are discriminated against because they have a public image problem...
You admit that it occurs but dismiss it as a public image problem, completely ignoring the role of religious believers as the ones responsible for their discrimminatory actions and beliefs.
Does anyone wonder why Dawkins and Harris sometimes say that liberal religious belief and believers give tacit support to the bigotry of fundamentalists?
Last, I just want to point something out. Religious liberty is by definition a civil rights issue. For all of us.
Posted by: Leni | June 29, 2007 1:55 AM
Corey writes:
No, that's not evidence at all. That's a rhetorical claim with a huge amount amount of evidence pushing back against it. It's also a perfect example of why atheists have an image problem: atheism does not entail any collection of beliefs, positive or negative, about how to act in the world as an ethical agent. Yet, Corey is trying to connect atheism to a certain position with respect to charity. The most one can say is Corey is an atheist and not a humanist. That's not a positive description.
More here.
Posted by: Trinifar | June 29, 2007 3:37 AM
I would say that in the US there are a lot of negative feelings towards atheists. It is hard to imagine a president being elected who is an atheist. Yet is that because people hate atheists or because people like to vote for people they think have the same values, religion, etc?
To the best of my knowledge Karl Rove has admitted to being non religious. It's not like he hasn't made a career for himself.
Atheists need to speak out and start forming influence groups. If 10% or so of the population is atheist than that is a sizeable group. Time to start using that power.
Posted by: Mark UK | June 29, 2007 4:18 AM
Nice frame. A 'public image problem' is easy to lay at the feet of those who are being portrayed unfairly, if you don't actually engage your brain long enough to work through the concept.
After all, most discrimination involves a 'public image problem.' Slavery? Whites saw other races as fundamentally inferior, even sub-human; might just be considered a 'public image problem.' Sexism? I don't see how the common perception of women as airheads who were simply incapable of studying anything complicated like basic maths and science could be anything but a 'public image problem.' How about the Holocaust? The perception that Jews were responsible for all the ills of German society certainly sounds like a 'public image problem.'
Of course, in most contexts, these 'public image problems' are usually described by a more familiar term - bigotry. But in that frame, it's patently obvious where the blame lies, and it isn't with the victims. So if you want to shift the blame, you need to switch the frame, to something nice and neutral-sounding, like 'public image problem.' Neat trick.
Posted by: MartinM | June 29, 2007 5:28 AM
Oh, Man, I don't even know where to begin here. I read Jason Rosenhouse's entry before I came here and that has put me in "fighting" mode.
The truth is that it is more acceptable socially to have some religion, no matter how out of the mainstream, than to have none at all. Wiccans are treated with more respect than are atheists, because "at least they believe in something." (Never mind that the Wiccan wife of the Vampire who ran for governor in Minnesota in 2006 was fired from her job at a school bus company once her religious beliefs were made public.)
As atheists we are largely in a closet, either of self-imposition from a fear of making waves or from a fear of losing contact with our families. Those of us in politics find it best just not to talk about it at all. When I was part of a Day of Reason event at the State Capitol in May, not a single legislator would join us for the ceremony in the rotunda because of the fear that they would be associated with atheists. Doesn't happen for gays, blacks or feminists, does it? We heard from legislators who supported our cause and were glad we were there to counter the Day of Prayer event outside (which had several legislators joining them.)
We live largely in a world in which we have a self-imposed gag rule on our atheism, and this is an erosion of our freedoms as much as any military policy of "don't ask don't tell" is. Prisoners get special privileges unavailable to atheists if they belong to prayer groups. Justawriter has pointed out cases of active discrimination against atheists in child-custody cases. I dare anyone to tell the parents who have lost custody of their children because they are atheist that it isn't a civil rights issue.
Dawkins' and Hitchens' books are a gift to those of us that have had to keep quiet about our beliefs because they send the important message "You are not alone." Why would you take that away? The fact that The God Delusion has sold approximately 1 million in hardcover should tell you that Dawkins' outspokenness on the issue is needed by a very large group of people.
Atheists must push for acceptance, and if part of it is to present a positive face, then that is important, too. But there is no reason that we should not stand up and be counted. Nothing gets fixed that way.
We do have a public image problem, and I think that you and people like you are as big a part of the problem as anyone else when you patronize us and tell us to "Sit down, shut up. The grown-ups are busy framing for your benefit. Leave it to us and we will make the world a happy place for atheists and everyone else."
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | June 29, 2007 8:27 AM
Sorry, but he's right. I'm sure I'll take guff for this since I'm a theist, but... Atheism is not a civil rights issue because discrimination against atheists (an admittedly serious problem) is, unlike discrimination against other minority groups in history, not codified, legal, and enforced by the government. In every part of this country, it is illegal to discriminate based on "religion." In MOST of the country, it is legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. A person who is attacked b/c he's an atheist has protection under ALL existing hate crimes laws. A gay person attacked based on sexual orientation is not protected under MOST hate crimes laws. Gay people (like women and racial minorities before them) are denied freedom and equality by force of law. This is not true for atheists. All laws discriminating against atheists (while they may remain on the books) have been declared unconstitutional and are thus unenforceable.
I won't address the "image problem" in detail, just note that this is common amongst minorities. Until atheists "come out" en masse, you will be represented by the "worst" amongst you in many cases. Those who are loud and offensive draw more attention than the every day people quietly going about their daily lives, and are more easily remembered. As a gay person, I am all too aware of how gay people were once represented by the "worst" amongst us, like those regularly arrested for public sex.
Posted by: Melinda Barton | June 29, 2007 8:48 AM
I should point out that I don't think this "image problem" is the fault of the minority per se, just a fact of being a minority. However, increasing visibility and drawing attention to the ordinariness of atheists, gay people, etc. is an effective tactic for countering stereotypes.
Posted by: Melinda Barton | June 29, 2007 8:50 AM
Melinda,
You admit that atheists are discriminated against and yet to do not call it a civil rights issue. I simply do not understand you thinking. You seem to be echoing the view of others here who think that because there is no statute permitting discrimination on the basis of religion then it is not a civil rights issue. What is the right to be considered for employment solely on your ability to do the job, and not on factors that do not impact that, like religious beliefs, sexual orientation, skin colour if not a civil (and human) right ? Mike in the post above yours tells us that a Wiccan was sacked for being a Wiccan (something I imagine most atheists would abhore. Certainly those who have been criticised for being too outspoken are perfectly clear about that. If only those who were calling for them to shut up were as well). That is not acceptable in any society that would consider itself civilised and enlightened.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 9:03 AM
Six.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | June 29, 2007 10:48 AM
I argue that it is not b/c these civil rights are protected under existing law for atheists, but not for gay people, for instance. You are not fighting for basic legal protections. You already have them. I'm with you on the fight against discrimination, but that is very different from the fight to actual get legal protections and equality before the law. What makes the difference is that when you are discriminated against, you have recourse to the law. When I am discriminated against as a gay person, I do not. There are few state/local laws in the and no federal laws which protect me from anti-gay discrimination. Anti-gay discrimination is thus legal. We are still fighting to be including in those laws (state, local, and federal) which are intended to ensure equality before the law. You are already included.
In other words, there's a difference between having your legally acknowledged civil rights violated and not having legally acknoledged civil rights.
Posted by: Melinda Barton | June 29, 2007 10:51 AM
I'm sorry, that should read "there are few state/local laws in the U.S...."
Posted by: Melinda Barton | June 29, 2007 10:52 AM
Sorry again, but my spelling has suffered atrociously. "we ar still fighting to be included.." obviously not "including". and that should be acknowledged.
Posted by: Melinda Barton | June 29, 2007 10:54 AM
Nisbett: Go here and here
http://redsonja2000.blogspot.com/2006/07/life-under-christianist-dominion.html
and here
http://redsonja2000.blogspot.com/2006/07/another-look-at-life-under.html
ERV: You go girl!
Susan (From Oklahoma)
Posted by: Susan Brassfield Cogan | June 29, 2007 10:57 AM
Not a civil rights issue? tell that to Nicole Smalkowski!
Posted by: dorid | June 29, 2007 11:00 AM
Melinda,
The fact that discrimination on grounds of religion has been unlawful does not actually mean it is not a civil rights issue. On the contrary, it suggests that it is a civil rights issue else why have legislation to address it ? Also the fact that such laws exist does not actually end discrimination, it just makes it become more subtle. Does anyone doubt that a white male and a black female of equal talent will not have the same prospects of getting a job ?
That you are discriminated against because of your sexuality is not acceptable and any decent society would not permit it. That the US has no such laws on a national level is a damming indictment of the US and one that needs to be address if the US wishes to be considered a rational and enlightened place.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 11:09 AM
Thank you for putting your title in all caps, it tips us off as to how seriously you should be taken.
You say that atheists have the same civil rights as others, but if those rights are routinely, yes routinely, violated, then there is indeed a civil rights issue to be addressed.
Here's one issue in which routine bias occurs: Anti-atheist discrimination in child custody cases, as researched by Eugene Volokh.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | June 29, 2007 11:13 AM
Melinda: so are you saying Richard Dawkins is the "worst" among us? That he's "loud and offensive"?
And that as a gay person, you think the loud and proud pioneers who fought for your rights as well as theirs are somehow "worse" other gay people?
Jebus. Whose side are you on?
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 29, 2007 11:20 AM
There is no doubt that atheism is a civil rights issue. I am an atheist. There is nothing wrong with that. But I am often made to feel that I have something wrong with me because of this. There are places where I should not mention it. There are times when I need to "pass" for "christian" or "spiritual." There are many people who think that if someone is an atheist, they have number of "other things wrong with them" as well.
But we're good at science. A sort of natural ability.
Posted by: Greg Laden | June 29, 2007 11:29 AM
Austin Cline article on court discrimination against atheists in childcare cases -- with citations to actual case law.
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/256589.htm
Time to say "uncle."
Posted by: Anthony Harmon | June 29, 2007 11:38 AM
The amount of conflation of ideas here is _staggering_. 'Atheism' is a civil rights issue, but religious freedom is what everyone should care about? That means _religious freedom_ is a civil rights issue, of which Atheism is a specific group which deserves religious freedom.
A real criticism of religion does not involve saying that Religion = Delusion (The title of The God Delusion, which automatically puts the ideas he presents in a frame of 'religious belief = crazy people'.) A real argument towards religious freedom and civil rights does _not_ attempt to say that religion is wrong and delusional. And yet, posters say that 'Atheism is a civil rights issue' make sense.
Making comparisons to black rights, womens suffrage and rights, or gay rights, _does not make it so_. Treating Atheism as the single special discriminated group that represents all religious freedom issues _does not make it so_. Please, think about what is being _said_. 'Atheism is a civil rights issue?' Where's the people going 'Being black is a civil rights issue?' Not many people. 'Discrimination against blacks is a civil rights issue?' Well, there you get a hell of a lot closer to right.
Why would you want to make Atheism out to be little more than a political movement, when it is _so much more_? Atheism is a belief. Religious freedom is a civil rights issue. Don't mix the two up.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | June 29, 2007 11:42 AM
PZ:
Indeed, Melinda even made that argument on the 38th anniversary of the Stonewall Quiet Protes.... I'm sorry, the Stonewall Riots, in which a bunch of "loud and offensive" gay folks bothered to stand up for their own dignity against majority bigotry.How dare those rioters be so "loud and offensive," huh, Melinda?
Posted by: Rieux | June 29, 2007 11:43 AM
Greg,
What about the atheists who are artists, poets, writers, or cultural critics? Camille Paglia comes to mind.
Do they "follow a life of science" or a "rational" worldview?...a distinguishing characteristic that commentators at this thread imply make atheists different from religious citizens.
And if they don't, does their atheism have the same legitimacy as "science atheists"?
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | June 29, 2007 11:45 AM
I'm generally known as one of the "Neville Chamberlain" atheists; a guy happy to get along with theists and not all that concerned to wipe out religion. I get into big arguments now and again with PZ Myers in particular on this matter.
But on this occasion, I'm solidly with PZ. You've moved away entirely from the whole question of how to tackle science education, and are now simply complaining about atheists speaking up about being atheists.
The stuff about civil rights is a red herring. In fact, Dawkins and Hichens have very little to say about civil rights. They are focused on substantive engagement with the basis of belief. That's a good thing. There is a real and legitimate debate about the value of religion and the reasonableness of belief or disbelief in God; and I think Dawkins has done us a great service in increasing the visibility of unbelief. With your concerns about this being "divisive", you seem to be wanting it all back in the box again, to get back the bad old days of a default position that we all should be respectful of religion and encourage freedom of religion expression, but should avoid saying anything about atheism because it's "divisive".
Forget it. There actually are deep divisions, because there are definite propositions being made that cannot be reconciled. Some folks assert that a God exists. Some folks assert that there's no such thing. I'm all in favour of talking about that openly; and I positively expect that this will be upsetting to many believers. I mean them no personal ill will; and indeed I am in active and friendly discussion with Christians on such matters.
Dawkins and Hitchens don't talk about civil rights much at all. They go straight for the meat of the matter: does God exist or not? They -- and I -- think there are very good reasons for confidence that no such being exists. That's why I'm an atheist.
This is not to say I agree with Dawkins and Hitchens on everything. But overall, they've helped raised the visibility of atheism and fostered a real substantive engagement on matters bearing upon the heart of belief and disbelief. That's a good thing.
Now when it comes to science education, I do have some differences with PZ Myers and Dawkins. But it's more than merely a difference in "framing"... it is a genuine substantive difference on nature of religion and of science.
I think you had some good points when you were speaking about how we can "frame" discussion that is focused on science education. But posts like this leave me with the impression that actually, it is not about correctly framing the debate on science at all. It seems to be about trying to get athiests to stop talking so loudly about their unbelief in ANY context.
Cheers -- Duae Quartunciae
Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | June 29, 2007 11:50 AM
I don't think Greg said that atheists can only be scientists. Are malaprops one of the tools of framing now?
And please...Camille Paglia? She's just evidence that some atheists can be nuts.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 29, 2007 11:52 AM
That there is a correlation between being a scientist and being an atheist has been well established by the evidence. The simple fact is that people who do science are far less likely to believe in a god than either the general population or those engage in other academic fields.
Of course whether there is causality is another matter. Are atheists drawn towards science or does studying science lead people to become atheist ? I suspect both at at play.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 11:56 AM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | June 29, 2007 11:57 AM
PZ,
My personal opinion is that yes, Dawkins poorly represents the majority of atheists including people I deeply love and respect who happen to be atheists. I don't find everything he says offensive, but I find how he says even what I agree with offensive.
The same can be said of my opinion of your work. I agree with you on many, many things, but often find your tone offensive. I would defend to my death your right to speak, so please don't think I'm coming to silence you.
I do, however, reserve my right to criticize what you or Dawkins say or how you say it as that falls under my right to speak.
However, I put "worst" in quotation marks for a reason, that reason being that "worst" would be highly subjective. Perhaps I should have put "offensive" in quotations as well. My point is that the people who are most noticeable rarely represent all of us or adequately represent the diversity of any human group.
As for early gay activists, that's more complicated. I'm not completely opposed to being loud and offensive on occasion and I'm more than aware that my being openly gay is offensive to many. I'm proud of what radical gay activists accomplished, but I separate them from extreme gay activists and people whose public behavior did not reflect us as a group.
In other words, I'm offended by the fact that most attention went to those who had sex in public bathrooms rather than those who were living normal, law-abiding lives (too often in secrecy and shame). I have to acknowledge that this perpetuated stereotypes against us and that the movement to get gay people to "come out" played a vital role in countering those sterotypes. I'm offended that ACT-UP activists invaded a church during mass, pelted the archbishop with condoms, and threw the host on the ground. I'm not Catholic, nor do I have a special place in my heart for the Catholic hierarchy. But I find such tactics infantile, morally reprehensible and counterproductive. I'm also offended by those who think straight-bashing and man-hating are any more acceptable than gay-bashing and woman-hating. (And yes, stereotypical as they are, those people do exist.)
As for the civil rights issue, I simply believe there's a difference between a violation of civil rights which requires recourse to existing law and that which requires us to change existing laws in order to receive acknowledgment of and protection for our civil rights. I've written a more detailed explanation on my blog about that.
Posted by: Melinda Barton | June 29, 2007 11:58 AM
Nisbet:
I'm an atheist who has a degree in music composition, and I write (prose) for a living. The most recent hard-science course I took was twelfth-grade AP biology, many years ago. I'm not exactly frightened that Greg or any other of my peers in the "echo chamber of the Atheist Net Roots" is going to think less of me for any of that.All of that hardly obscures the fact that you're getting your head handed to you in this exchange--especially with regard to the evidence of civil rights violations in which you're being thoroughly buried.
Posted by: Rieux | June 29, 2007 11:58 AM
If it's not a civil rights issue because there's a law against it, then that means that discrimination against minorities in hiring is not a civil rights issue - there's a law against it.
The deliberate disenfranchisement of black voters in the south is not a civil rights issue, because it's illegal.
Lynching - not a civil rights issue.
The thousands of Asian women brought into the US to be forced into sex slavery - not a civil rights issue.
Gay marriage is no longer a matter of civil rights in Massachusetts - imagine that.
Lets see how far we can carry this... since murder is illegal, does that mean its no longer counts as violent victimization?
Posted by: craig | June 29, 2007 11:58 AM
Atheism is a civil rights issue. Try having a court mediator rule that your soon to be ex-spouse is a better parent because he resonates with her fundamentalist belief in jeebus. And if that results in home schooling, goofy religious indoctrination and parental alienation; then it's all good, eh?
Posted by: Robert Hoitsma | June 29, 2007 12:03 PM
Sorry, Matt, but you absolutely missed with this one.
As one of just a handful of Jewish kids in my grade school, I remember being the only one who didn't rise for the Lord's Prayer with which every school day opened in our classrooms (from kindergarten through 4th grade - that would be 1960-64). In particular, I recall my 3rd-grade teacher looking daggers at me when this happened. Her resentment extended to schoolwork: My parents related to me that at their first parent-teacher conference, she told them that since I was in 3rd grade, I should be reading at 3rd grade level - not the advanced texts I preferred. (Anyone remember Asimov's "World of Carbon" and "World of Nitrogen"?) At least I felt somewhat protected, since even at that age I knew the school administrators were familiar with Judaism. If I'd been an atheist at that point, I'd have felt a lot less secure.
Mike Haubrich and Greg Laden are exactly right - one doesn't hear more about this in part because atheists feel so outnumbered. Insensitive folks (hint) may confuse this with lack of a problem.
Posted by: Jud | June 29, 2007 12:03 PM
PZ,
My point is that many atheists try to appropriate the terms "rational" and "science" to bolster their arguments and to draw a boundary between themselves and anyone (fundamentalist, moderate, or liberal) who is religious. These rhetorical terms are rarely clearly defined and usually thrown around as a way to piggyback on the cultural authority of science.
But the question remains, what about all those "artsy" atheists? What if you arrive at your atheism through a "non-scientific" logic?
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | June 29, 2007 12:03 PM
I don't think I've seen anyone address this in the comments - if Dawkins and Hitchens are so bad for atheism's PR, then I gotta ask; how much better it was before their books came out? Were people treating atheists like comrades before Dawkins tricked them into thinking we're all assholes? Wouldn't the only evidence of bad publicity be a decrease in respect and acknowledgement of atheism? The only thing I've seen these books do, and what I believe was their primary goal, is to get people thinking and talking about atheism, a discussion that seemed to be severely lacking before.
I must say though, if the best complaint against atheist activism is not against it's ideas or intentions, but that it is loud and obnoxious(as I suspect any good activist should be), then we're certainly doing well for ourselves.
Posted by: JD | June 29, 2007 12:05 PM
JD,
I don't think anyone is arguing that Dawkins and the rest created anti-atheist sentiment only that they bolster the stereotypes upon which it is based. My solution is not to silence them, but to get the rest of you to speak up so that the ordinariness and diversity of atheists would be recognized. Come out, loud and proud. But please note that coming out with "I'm superior" probably won't work as well as coming out with "I'm equal."
Posted by: Melinda Barton | June 29, 2007 12:16 PM
What of them? What of all those people who accept evolution despite not knowing a damn thing about it? Was there a point in there?
Posted by: MartinM | June 29, 2007 12:17 PM
"On occasion, atheists are discriminated against because they have a public image problem, and the Dawkins/Hitchens' PR campaign, by radicalizing a movement of attacks and complaints, only makes this public image problem worse, generating more discrimination."
Atheists are discriminated against for the simple fact that the religious can't come to terms with the fact that someone can objectively look at their religion and decide it's bunk. Therefore they think that SOMETHING has to be wrong with atheists. Trying to blame this on Dawkins or Hitchens is abusrd. For one thing I'm pretty sure the religious were polarized in an us-versus-them mentality a LONG time before either Dawkins or Hitchens wrote a book. Perhaps all the genocide in the bible is Dawkins fault too?
Posted by: Boosterz | June 29, 2007 12:19 PM
Matt,
I realized when writing my blog post that I was falling into a semantic tangle over civil rights issues vs. civil rights movements. Discrimination of any kind is a civil rights "issue". But there is a difference between a civil rights issue that requires a civil rights movement to gain legal acknowledgement of and protection for civil rights and civil rights issues that can be resolved through recourse to existing laws. I don't think the atheist movement is a civil rights movement as existing laws protect you.
My apologies to all for not being more specific before.
Posted by: Melinda Barton | June 29, 2007 12:19 PM
Matthew Nesbit says that atheists call themselves "rational" when comparing their religious beliefs with theists. I get the impression he thinks this is a bad thing. I am not sure why.
Believing things exist on faith, rather than evidence is NOT rational. I doubt Nesbit would consider people who think they have been abducted by aliens to be rational and yet theists have no more evidence than those who think that aliens are visiting trailer parks in the US, kidnapping the most credulous of the inhabitents and anally probing them. I can only conclude he is using a different meaning of the word "rational" than I am.
I know people who are religious. Some seem to have grasped this very point and accept that there no rational basis for their belief. They do tend to the more intelligent and thoughtful of theists I know. I cannot pretend to understand why they still insist on belief in a god but they are also the type of theist who insists on pushing their world view onto others. I disagree with them but as Harris, PZ, Dawkins have pointed out, these people are NOT the problem. If all theists were like them there would be need for the call to arms for atheists.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 12:24 PM
A few points that came to mind as I read this discussion:
1. Renee, when discrimination occurs, civil rights are lost or taken away. They may not be the same thing but they are linked. If you speak of discrimination against atheists, then it is very likely that the civil rights of those atheists are being affected negatively.
2. Is the ability to practice your religion freely, without discrimination or interference (without harming others in the process, of course), a civil rights issue? Let's say you are Buddhist... can you be discriminated against because you are NOT Christian? Or Catholic? If that is the case, then you can not be discriminated against for NOT practicing a particular religion... or any religion at all. The right to practice atheism is very much a civil rights issue.
3. On a personal note, my husband and I are atheist and agnostic, respectively. As such we are raising our kids without religion, though we discuss the various religions with them. My 7 year old is the vocal type and easily volunteered that he is non-religious when the topic came up with his friends (all strongly religious) at school. The other boys spent the next few month pestering him continuously with comments and questions such as: "Why don't you believe in God?" "Don't you know you are going to hell?" "Only bad people don't believe in God." He dealt with it as well as he could but eventually I had to approach his teacher to ask for his help. His response? "This is not something I can talk about directly with the boys. But I can start a classroom discussion on treating everyone fairly." Now, do you think those boys made the connection between the "fairness" discussion and their own behavior? Nope. Not at all and the badgering and bullying continued. I just can't help but wonder if my son had been Jewish or Muslim or Hindu if the teacher would have been so reticent about stepping in and stopping the behavior. So as a Mom of a angry, embattled 7 year old boy, please don't you dare tell me that this is not an issue of civil rights.
Posted by: LCR | June 29, 2007 12:27 PM
Matthew Nisbet wrote:
"Which also gets at a point I made in an earlier post this week: Instead of mobilizing a movement of sophomoric attacks and complaints that paints as black all religious Americans, atheists need to focus on offering a positive vision of what it means to live life without religion; both in the popular entertainment media but also as leaders who span divides in our communities, (instead of just generating further polarization.)"
I don't think these agendas are mutually exclusive. I think it's important to continually and repeatedly point out the irrationality of religious belief. But once you're done ripping the religious account of morality and meaning to shreds, and the persuaded reader buys your argument, from where are they expected to derive meaning and morality? It's as if this batch of writers is ripping up the believers bible, with no positive value system to replace it. Presumably the new atheistic convert is simply supposed to figure it out on their own.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect high-profile atheists to put forth a constructive account of their source of meaning and morality, a basis of secular values. Since atheism is essentially a clean landscape, swept free of antiquated religious ideologies, secular thinkers need to do the hard work of building up a system that stands as a viable alternative.
If there are shared values, then that can lead to organization. If those values are idiosyncratic, then we really have nothing positive in common (but I don't think that's the case).
A positive secular value system would go a long way in improving the perception of secular members of society.
Posted by: Derek James | June 29, 2007 12:28 PM
Bloody hell. With "scientists" like this, who needs religion?
Posted by: ben | June 29, 2007 12:28 PM
I had a conversation with DJ about this very issue a month or so ago, while he was in Austin. He agreed that individuals can and have faced civil rights violations because of their atheism and his objection (as I understand it) was that the broad-based labeling of atheism as a "civil rights issue" was overreaching, perceived as innaccurate and, therefore, potentially damaging.
Essentially, it gives the impression that atheists are overtly being denied rights because of their atheism in the same way that previous groups were denied rights - which isn't clearly the case. Atheists face overt and covert threats to (as opposed to legally sanctioned denial of) their rights and active discrimination because of their atheism.
It would be nice if we could remove the anti-godless language that appears in the Constitution of many States - but these laws currently have no teeth. Will that be the case forever? I have no idea...
However, I'm an atheist - and one of the more vocal ones. Between the TV show, podcasts and essays, I suspect that Matthew would consider much of what I do to be "sophomoric attacks". In any given week, the same comment from me might be praised for being a passionate defense of reason or a viscious polemic. One caller will express amazement at the patience I exhibit while the other will consider m