Today, many of us readily recognize bigotry and discrimination when it occurs on the basis of race, national origin, religion, sex, age and disability. Those of us in the ever evolving movements against prejudice also tend to believe that we've at least identified the groups that require attention. But have we? Are there remaining identity-based prejudices still operating beneath our radar? If you took time to name a group that is still stigmatized but overlooked in the movement for mutual respect, are there any you would choose?
One that comes to mind is the non-religious, a group often referred to as atheists.
To be clear, the term "atheist" is not synonymous with the terms "non-believer" or "none" (a catch-all category used by many researchers). A non-religious person and an atheist can have belief systems as different as a pagan and a Protestant. Individuals in the non-religious category include atheists (i.e., believing that there is no higher being), agnostics (believing there is a lack of sufficient information to be certain), secular humanists (embracing reason and humanity, rejecting dogma), those who are spiritual, but do not participate in organized religion, and others. Each is a distinct and internally diverse belief system, but together the "none" group is rather large. According to a 2008 ARIS report, 15 percent of people in the U.S. claim no religion.
Despite the group's hefty representation, it has rarely been included in anti-prejudice efforts -- even in the face of mounting evidence that atheists and other "nones" are frequently ostracized.
A recent series of surveys makes the point. Atheists are perceived negatively; in fact, more negatively than a long list of other ethnic, religious and other identity groups. In a 2006 study in the American Sociological Review, respondents were asked questions about their attitudes toward a list of different groups. Nearly 40 percent of the respondents stated that atheists do not at all agree with their vision of American society, and 47.6 percent said that they would disapprove if their child wanted to marry an atheist. For these same questions, the group with the next highest negative ratings was Muslims at 26.3 percent and 33.5 percent, respectively. Another study, published last month by Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan of the University of Oregon and Azim Sharaff of the University of British Columbia, found that people widely distrust anyone they believe to be an atheist. In fact, their respondents reported comparably high levels of distrust for only two groups -- atheists and rapists.
Elsewhere, there is evidence that publicly coming out as an atheist can result in outright exclusion. At religious colleges like the University of Dayton, non-theistic student groups, such as the Society of Freethinkers, have been denied participation in the college community. These students are meeting off campus, but feel the sting of being barred access to the funding and institutional support that fellow student groups enjoy. At the University of Dayton, permission to officially operate within the college was reportedly refused because the Freethinkers conflicted with the institution's Christian mission, even as Muslim and Jewish student clubs have been allowed. In another incident, a local business put up a sign that it would not serve non-believers attending a Skepticon convention in Springfield, Mo. The shop's owner prominently (and briefly) displayed the sign so that attendees would know that they would not be welcomed at his Christian business. He has since apologized for his actions.
All this raises an uncomfortable question. How would news stories and the general discourse change if the group being targeted was black? Jewish? Female? Or the wheelchair bound? Would we be outraged? If so, why aren't we outraged when the targeted group is the "nones"?
Of course, this is just the surface. These are the stories the media finds newsworthy. In day-to-day living, rejection experienced by non-believers is an ongoing series of personal slights rather than a newsworthy event. We don't hear about the taxi driver who took me to a convention center where I was making a presentation. When he heard about my work on religious respect, he opened up about his non-belief. He had recently gathered the courage to tell his family that he is an atheist, "And now, half of them don't talk to me." Unfortunately, his is not an uncommon experience, as non-believers from a variety of backgrounds are discovering.
Long a group that was quiet, increasing numbers of non-believers are going public and spreading their message. Ads on buses and billboards promote the inherent good in people and challenge religious believers with text such as: "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake" and "The United States is not founded on the Christian religion." Articles are appearing in major media and broaching topics such as the potential morality in atheism, the nativity scene's place in public display and how the non-believing community can contribute to the interfaith movement.
So, when we look back on the beginning of the 21st century, what will we remember about movements against prejudice? Almost certainly, we will remember that divisions based on our different identities still raged, with persistent anti-Muslim sentiment, bias against immigrants, anti-Semitism, racism, gender bias, outright homophobia and prejudice against people with disabilities. But I think there is something else. I predict that we will also say that the anti-prejudice movements continued to evolve and adopt an ever more expansive view, one that recognizes how atheists and other "nones" are also targets of bias. And with that view, I hope, we will be able to report that we saw a reinvigorated and expanded commitment to combating all religious prejudice, whether it is based on a person's belief system or non-belief system.
Follow Joyce S. Dubensky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TanenbaumCenter
"You were MAAB so you cannot be a feminist" "Only an FAAB can be a feminist".
No, no prejudiced there at all. So tell me, when a woman loses her uterus, or, is born without one, can she be a feminist ? A birth defect that prevents her from being "Whole and 100% female" prevent her ? Oh, I guess we can make exceptions to that rule for them.
No, a Trans Woman supposedly enjoys male privilege until she transitions. How narrow and hateful. Why do you think Trans persons have a 50% suicide rate ? Because they had it so easy growing up ?
I have come to hate the term "A woman like me" it means, essentially, "It is justifiable to be prejudiced towards you because I can".
Peace and progress my sister.
Which is more humorous, a few evolving definitions or 38,000 different denominations of Christianity?
Here on HP it's an experience to read the rebukes of my micro bio. As usual the assumptions and projections that people make are as varied as leaves on a tree. I've received everything from outright insults to carefully constructed intellectual arguments that barely reveal their implied admonishments. I've delved deep into gods and gurus in my life being a seeker of truth. I felt grace, spirituality, connectedness, and consciousness under a variety of situations in life. There are many paths to awareness and religion is just one lesson along the way that ultimately should be discarded.
What I respect is grounded honesty and human beings with exceptional consciousness; people who are fully awake and aware of what they are doing and saying. People who take 100% responsibility for the decisions they make based on their own conscious awareness without using dogma or gods to justify their actions or the actions of some organized entity with a political agenda.
The most sacred thing on earth aside from this incredible natural existence is an aware, awake, fully present, human being, watchful, non-judgmental, and open to experience what is instead of their projections.
Let's ask Tim Tebow why he thinks that is.
Also, do you know that there are atheists who could give a rat'spatootie about his game-time choices, or do you choose to ignore them and focus on the atheists you don't like?
Religious people act like their belief in a higher power automatically makes them better people. History would beg to differ.
Of course that's really not my experience of most 'atheists on the street,' but it's the Internet.
The reasons why a person ends up in the second group can obviously be numerous: "Don't know but don't currently accept a theist claim", "Don't know because unaware of the tenants of the claims", "Convinced all claims are false" etc. Regardless, there are only two groups: theists and everyone else. That means there is no such thing as an "agnostic". You either ascribe truth to a theist claim or you are an athiest. "I don't know" is not an acknowledgement of said claim and thus makes the person an atheist.
Languages evolve, and the meaning of words evolves, because they reflect consensus. Right now, in our society, we have two different words that have a particular meaning for most people (not you).
For most people, an atheist is someone who actively rejects the idea that there is a God, and an agnostic is someone who is undecided on the matter.
Good luck with changing the mass consensus here. I guess everybody needs a hobby, and yours seems harmless enough.
> two different words that have a
> particular meaning for most people (not you).
Right now there is no consistency. Ask 10 people to differentiate an atheist from an agnostic and they'll give you 10 different answers.
> an atheist is someone who actively
> rejects the idea that there is a God,
> and an agnostic is someone who is
> undecided on the matter.
Most people do not understand their own language. The person you describe is often described as an anti-theist which is a term with which most theists are unfamiliar. I had someone tell me once that atheist is synonymous with nihilist.
> Good luck with changing the mass consensus
> here. I guess everybody needs a hobby, and
> yours seems harmless enough.
This is capitulating to people with an active desire to warp the language or a laziness to understand their own language. It is equivalent to those that want to call evolution "just a theory". All that is required is to demonstrate the etymology of the term "atheist" to show what it really means. Without clarity of the language, you end up with a discussion about why smurfing with one type of smurf is better than smurfing with another smurf. If people can understand how typical differs from atypical, they can understand how theist differs from atheist. Atheism is the null hypothesis which itself is a concept most people do not understand.
As for an agnostic, I cannot make the statement that in all of this universe and all other universes there is no deity. Do I think one will ever be found, no, but, that is my belief, it is not based on observations of all those places.
> too narrow. A person does not have to believe
> in a deity, but can believe in ghosts. The two
> are not necessarilÂy related. Therefore, someone
> can be an atheist yet believe in some form of the supernaturÂal.
This comes down to one's definition of "deity". I would bet that most people would include any form of supernatural being or entity in the sphere of "deity" and thus include ghosts as a supernatural being. Thus, you cannot be an atheist and believe in ghosts.
> As for an agnostic, I cannot make the
> statement that in all of this universe
> and all other universes there is no deity
This is a strawman since it is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist. "I don't know" is not acceptance of a theistic claim and thus makes you an atheist but not necessarily an anti-theist.
> Do I think one will ever be found, no, but,
> that is my belief, it is not based on
> observatioÂns of all those places.
If evidence to support the existence of a deity is discovered, it won't be supernatural; it will be natural. Phenomena we can detect is by definition part of the natural world.
A dog looks at humans and thinks, "Look at them, they know when I'm hungry, they know when I need a walk, they know when I need to play, they know what I like to eat, they know what I like to sleep on, they know my every want and need and give it to me: they must be gods."
A cat looks at humans and thinks, "Look at them, they know when I'm hungry, they know when my box next cleaning, they know when I want to play, they know what I like to eat, they know what I like to sleep on, they know my every want and need and give it to me: I must be a god."
Everyone has a belief system, whether conscious or not, because we all face tremendous uncertainty every day, and yet fill in the "blanks" with our mental construct of how things work. That is a belief system. It's a tad naive to think that one can be free of a belief system... Freud, even as an atheist, knew this, as do almost all philosophers.
Understanding the difference between belief and facts is the key.