Is Atheism a Rights Issue?...No.

Is it your contention that atheists are not discriminated against ? If someone is denied a job, or looses a job, because of their religious views (or lack thereof) why is that not civil rights issue ?

Doesn't your response apply to any group, such as Women, people of color, and GLBTs?

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?

I am sorry to read of your complete agreement with that. I can, off the top of my head, recall a case of atheist-bashing in Oklahoma (search term: Smalkowski) and a report of an atheist family being run out of a small town in Mississippi (CNN botched a panel discussion on that case, I'm surprised you didn't even hear about it), both within the last year or two.
One reason there are not more court cases is that the ACLU deliberately selects theist defendants for church|state separation cases - to circumvent anti-atheist discrimination.
Eugen Volokh has researched anti-atheist discrimination in child custody cases. If atheists have the same rights as others, but they are routinely violated, then indeed it is a civil rights issue.
I am shocked! Shocked, I say, to read that you live in New York, and not a "red state"! Your insularity is not evidence.

Do you think atheism COULD be a rights issue?

It seems to me that if atheism were used to discriminate against an individual it would be. We haven't seen many provable, specific instances of this described here or in the media but it seems like a plausible threat.
In certain situations we do feel somewhat like pariahs. As a result its easy for me to imagine a case where someone in a position of power might consider our beliefs when making a decision.

I should have read Reginald Selkirk's post first - there are some examples of what I was imagining.

Wait a second.

If you found a law that denied black people from holding public office, you wouldn't call that a rights issue?

It's one thing if you can't get elected because people don't want to vote for an atheist (it's discrimination of a sort, but not necessarily a civil rights issue). But when the law writes you out of holding office? Many states and localities still have laws on the books keeping atheists from holding public office. Not being allowed by law to serve in a supposedly representative government is a big issue for civil rights, I'd say.

Atheist bashing happens in the rural South pretty regularly, especially to young people, but at work as well. I've known personal friends who've suffered bullying, including violent bullying, as a result of their non-belief.

Non-believers can't be in scouts, but I assume they could also be denied housing based on their beliefs. Should we allow housing discrimination based on religious beliefs but not allow someone to keep out asians or native americans? But then if we protect some beliefs, why not protect all beliefs? *shrug* Not saying it's straightforward, but I think it's plausible that religious (non-)belief could be used against someone in things like housing and employment. Just because it isn't as rampantly common (but still common enough!) -- because the property isn't visibly evident like skin color or sex -- doesn't mean it doesn't happen or can't be worse, nor that there shouldn't be some protection.

It can mean a huge life difference when it comes to things like child custody, as someone else mentioned.

At the very least, I think denying office holding based on religious belief is a fair civil rights issue.

Strange Loops,

I live in the UK and here it is not legal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion, or lack thereof and it is seen as a human and civil rights issue. Of course there are exceptions. A religious organisation can require that some of those it employs have certain religious views, but only if they can show they are important to the job. Thus a minister would have to share the faith of the organisation but a cleaner need not. Also there is no protection if you happen to hold a faith that does not permit you to carry out certain of the tasks your job involves. A recent case involved a teaching assistant who refused to read Harry Potter to a group of children on the grounds that it condoned witchcraft and as a Christian that was not acceptable to here. The tribunal ruled that if she held religious beliefs that prevented her from doing her job then she was in the wrong job.

Strange Loops,

Even after a law is declared unenforceable either through legislative or judicial action, it may remain "on the books" simply b/c separate legislative action is required to remove it. Many legislature's deem it a waste of time to go through legislative action to remove a "dead" law from the books. Usually, the published code books will include notes indicating that a law has been declared unconstitutional, is unenforceable, has been superceded by another law, etc. (I'm not allowed to go into too much detail about my day job, but I'll point out that I have to read state code books often.)

So, yes, these ignorant laws are still on the books, but they are unenforceable by order of the Supreme Court.

Melinda,

The problem with having such laws still extant is that an official can decide to invoke the law. The law may well be declared unconstitutional later by a court but normally that takes some time. In the meantime the person caught up in the law is being discriminated against.

Matt,

These laws have already been declared unconstitutional, therefore, any official who attempts to invoke them would very quickly find himself in a LOT of trouble. This is similar to the many anti-abortion laws still on the books. No official can invoke them b/c they are listed in the code as unenforceable/unconstitutional by order of the Supreme Court. If it was so easy to invoke dead laws, don't you think a whole lot of anti-abortion officials would have tried that by now?

There seem to a lot of laws in the US that have to get to the higher courts before they are declared unconstitutional.

It would seem that the those in charge of reviewing legislation are not earning their keep. The US at a federal level has two chambers as I understand it. In most bicameral legislatures of the chambers has the job of making sure the other does not pass laws which conflict with the constitution.

Matt,

Sorry, I forgot that you're not American. The laws to which I am referring are state/local laws. Usually, attempting to invoke a dead law would provoke a review by the local or state attorney who would quash it pretty quickly. You're right that it would take a while for a new law to be declared unconstitutional, but usually legislatures (including the federal one) try to play semanatics to get around state high court or federal Supreme Court precedent. They don't directly violate it. For instance, no one is going to pass a new law now completely outlawing abortion. Instead, they try to chip away at the edges. The atheism issue is quite straight forward compared to abortion laws, however. The SC has declared atheism, secular humanism, etc. religions for the sake of constitutional protections of religious freedom. It's highly unlikely that a legislature would pass a direct assault on atheist rights under those conditions and there isn't much fringe to go after in this matter. Also, in the case where something is pretty straight forward constitutionally, it doesn't take as long to resolve the matter. Usually, the legislature involved would surrender long before it gets to the SC.

Oh. Our Supreme Court has the sole discretion to declare a federal law unconstitutional. State courts can declare state/local laws unconstitutional per state constitutions or per standing SC precedent. The federal legislature can only get around SC decisions completely by passing a constitutional amendment. Often, however, they too try to play around the gray areas to get something to pass muster.

Strange Loops,

Thanks for bringing up the scouting issue. I completely forgot about that. Non-religious scouts and leaders CAN take part in scouting as long as they keep their mouths shut about their "alternative lifestyles". Think of it as a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the Boy Scouts.

When my son expressed an interest in scouting, I had many reservations as I was angry at their treatment of homosexual scouts (my cousin, an eagle scout, has had very little good to say about scouting since coming out a decade ago) and also because of their strong ties to religion. I was concerned that his den might overtly emphasize religion and make him, the child of atheist/agnostic parents, uncomfortable.

I solved that problem by becoming a leader myself.

There is a section on the leader application where you have to promise to support the religious nature of scouting. This of course is not discrimination because they are a private organization funded by members and not by the government.

So how did I solve this little problem?

I lied.

I'm not knocking religion in our meetings, but I don't discuss it either. Anything having to do with religion is turned over to the parents as homework, since I strongly feel this is a private family issue, not the responsibility of a scout leader.

That said, we do seem to have a lot of meetings dedicated to science and nature and logic and reasoning...

I actually had similar views on this issue when I was in college. But after going into the workforce in the South those views have changed. I think being in school makes your experience a little isolated.

Where I work most people have bibles in their offices. Which is fine. But when we interview job candidates frequently they are pulled in from church ties. And after interviews positive points are he goes to church every sunday hes a good guy. Pretty much if you want to keep your job you act kind of of religious but leave when the discussion moves over to God. I have found this pretty common with over non religious friend who live in the city. I could complain but why put my job at risk. Additionally, you said if their was discrimination we would have heard about it. This is a little offbase. So if I complained that everyone at my work was religious and they tended to like religious people when hiring new people would this make the news. Not very likely. Their was a company last year that was holding prayer meetings at work and it only got slight coverage in the news.

Im not complaining about my situation. I realize if I want to get good annual reviews I need to get my beliefs to myself and I am fine with that. But being in college in New York and saying their is not discrimation because I dont see it here and I dont see it too much in the news is a little naive.

I think if we all had either "atheist" or "theist" tattooed on our foreheads, you'd find out pretty quickly how big a civil rights issue it really is. But wait, you say-- we don't have those tattoos, so it's not a big deal.

To the contrary. We should all be able to have "atheist" tattoos (or at least t-shirts) if we want to and not be subject to prejudice, discrimination, harassment, bashing, or denial of the right to run for office. And yet that's exactly what would happen today if atheists were easily identifiable.

Already our civil rights are violated by the many intrusions of church into government and thereby our lives. Think of how much worse it would be if we were readily identifiable as atheists. But we SHOULD be identifiable if we WANT to be, without fear of bigotry or retribution.

High school students required to receive their graduation diplomas in a Christian Church, with a very large cross looming in the background if parents want to snap a picture to commemorate the event -
Chorus directors in public schools who determine that children will sing "Oh Holy Night" in December performances -
Kindergarten children bullying a classmate at the buss stop because he disclosed that his family does not believe in going to church - Parents of the bullying children telling their kids not to play with the evil atheist kid --
There are probably a lot more closeted atheists in this country than you could imagine.
Why do you suppose they are closeted?

Yes, atheists have it better than women, minorities, or gay people, and no one is denying this (although I do believe it's mainly because there's no way to identify us unless we choose something specifically doing so). This doesn't mean we still can't talk about it, though. It is possible to care about more than one thing; to say that discrimination is going on without claiming it's the worst ever. And such discrimination does exist, as evidenced in links in posts on here and through ScienceBlogs. Amazing that such cases aren't judged newsworthy, though, huh? Almost as if people aren't really expected to care about atheists.

There is always something worse going on that we can focus on, and such things deserve the most attention. That doesn't mean they should get all the attention, though. Lesser discrimination still affects people (like parents not getting to see their child because a judge thinks children needs religious indoctrination to be a good person), and should be addressed accordingly. There is also the idea that a rising tide floats all boats, and thus the more accepting we make the nation, the more people will be accepted without having to fight for it, too, you know.

Up until 1961, in fact, atheists were systematically and legally denied basic civil rights in about a dozen states, including the right to vote, to hold public office, and even to testify in court. Is that not a sivil rights issue? The only thing preventing this now is the decision in Torcaso, which I doubt the curretn SCOTUS would uphold. How, then, is atheism not a civil rights issue? It isn;t just the danger of "bashing" but actual, historical and documented cases of true denial of civil rights, which most of the public now would still sympathize with denying us, were it not for the SCOTUS's 1961 decision.

Your post here is way off-base. While atheists have not been persecuted to the extent that other minority groups have, they certainly have been the victims of civil rights violations. As stated in previous comments, there are many instances in which out rights are violated. The numerous states in which we can't hold office, people who have lost jobs and several instances of hate crimes are just a few cases of persecution.

http://www.parallelpac.org/murder.htm

On October 18, 2004, Arthur Shelton, a self described Christian and Eagle Scout, murdered his friend and roommate, Larry Hooper, because Hooper didn't believe in God.

On December 18, 2005, after many months of postponements, Arthur Shelton, with his defense attorney, Seymour Swartz, appeared at the Frank Murphy Hall of Justice in Detroit, Michigan, before Judge Gregory D. Bill to face charges of murder in the first degree brought by Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Christina Guiruis.

When 50% of Americans a-priori won't vote for an atheist then there is a major bigotry problem. Bigotry is the driver behind discrimination and civil rights violations. Basically, atheists are afraid to assert their civil rights because they reasonably fear that elected officials will pass laws to overturn judicial decisions that uphold non-establishment of monotheism or non-discrimination laws. That is why Boy Scouts of America can receive millions of dollars in government grants each year and various other government subsidies even though their theist only "traditional values" membership policy disqualifies them from receiving such government assistance under existing but unenforced government non-discrimination laws. This is also why the media and elected officials marginalized as an aberration from a extremely liberal court the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that reasonably concluded that the Pledge of Allegiance law and the public school ritual recitation of the POA are both non-establishment violations.

I should have read Reginald Selkirk's post first - there are some examples of what I was imagining.