Atheism and Acceptance

-- SandorMarton - 03 Apr 2008

I. A despised Group

Over the past fifty years, minority groups that have traditionally been distrusted by Americans have steadily gained acceptance in this country. A gallup poll released in 2000 which measured voter’s willingness to elect a president from different minority groups demonstrated the significant progress many groups had made in gaining acceptance by the majority. For example, 95% of respondents said they could vote for a black person (up from 37% in 1958). Religious groups have also made great strides. In 1937, 60% of those polled said they would not vote for a Roman Catholic for president. 46% said they would not elect a Roman Catholic. In the 2000 poll both groups had a positive response rate of about 92%. While the current presidential election cycle has shown us that the connection between polls and how people actually vote can be fairly tenuous, the mere fact that number of people who will say they would vote for one of these minorities as so greatly increase is an indicator that these groups are more accepted than they once were.

While Atheists have also gained acceptance in some parts of the country (typically among college educated people living on the coasts, as found by a study conducted by the University of Minnesota), they remain one of the least electable groups: only 49% of respondents said they could vote for an atheist. That same University Minnesota study found that Atheists were by far the most disliked group among Muslims, African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics, Jews, conservative Christians, and Whites. 40% of those polled selected Atheists as the group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society." This general dislike/distrust is further demonstrated by laws which actually bar Atheists from holding office: Arkansas, Texas, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Pennsylvania. While legal challenges to these laws have been successful, the mere fact that such laws on the books and, in some cases, still enforced, further demonstrates the extreme distrust of Atheists as a group. Furthermore, even if such laws are found to be unconstitutional, it remains extremely difficult for open Atheists to be elected. No other group has such overt laws written to prevent them from holding office (one can certainly argue that other structures are in place to hold back other groups... but not actual laws barring office holders).

II. Impact?

Some have argued that Atheists will be the new target of scapegoating in America during times of national stress. Scapegoating social groups is the result of society encounters probmes and is unwilling or unable to discover and solve the true cause. Instead, it decides to blame an already disliked minority group for the problems. The Minnesota study found that Atheists have become, for many people, “a symbolic figure to represent their fears about ... trends in American life." “These included crime, rampant self-interest and [the elite].” Perhaps this is an indicator that a scapegoating predisposition already exists? Certainly the religious right has publically blamed atheism for many of our society’s ills and has done so more vocally after 9/11 (Jerry Fallwell’s infamous statements on CNN after 9/11, for example).

Additionally, if not believing in god is so antithetical to the principles of our society that Atheists should be barred from office in some states, then how far are we from enacting further legislation restricting open Atheism? After all, who else is barred from holding office? In some states, former felons are allowed to run for office (Illinois, for example). Are Atheists considered less trustworthy than former criminals? If so, surely employers, who generally refuse to hire ex-felons should likewise refuse to hire Atheists?

However, it is unlikely that Atheists will ever become an active target of scapegoating in the same way other groups have. Atheists are extremely difficult to detect. They do not share a common skin tone and do not live in the same part of town together. Further, unlike religious groups who can often be identified by their religious practices, Atheists specifically do not engage in any sort of ritual activity that would set them apart from the rest of society. They look no different than any other person who lapsed in the observation of their religion. As a result, they make very poor scapegoats.

On the other hand, escaping violent persecution is not the same as being free to embrace whatever view of religion one likes without limiting one’s ability to engage with the rest of society. The issue also cuts to fundamental rights: what does freedom of religion mean? Does it include freedom from religion (some in the religious right say no, it doesn’t).

III. Acceptance?

The same characteristic that insulates Atheists from scapegoating also impedes acceptance. Social Psychologists argue that the basis for prejudice is the cognitive structures people naturally form to deal with a complex world: people simplify reality by attaching simple rules to their surroundings. Only when those rules are confronted by a conflicting reality are people likely to unlearn that rule. So, by promoting social ties between different groups, one can help both groups accept the other.

However, because Atheists are so difficult to identify, people’s preconceptions about them are challenged less often than those of other groups. Perhaps the best way to encourage acceptance is by establishing a more visible Atheistic presence: push more Atheist candidates to run for office or be more open about one's lack of belief. The most effective way to reach people is through popular media. Exposing people to Atheist characters that do not reinforce negative stereotypes (perhaps the most common being that of the immoral elitist) would challenge the preconceptions of a much larger section of the population much more quickly than trying to effect change on the individual level. However, care must be taken. Direct, overt attacks on religion tend to galvanize the theists and give them a target to rally against, effectively creating the very threat that they claim already exists.