It is hard to be an atheist in America. I learned this first hand during my senior year of high school. While I was still in the “atheist closet,” I managed to witness the tyranny of the majority against the small atheist demographic. At my high school, every Thursday a very large group of Christian youth would wear sky blue shirts that read “Follow me, I know The Way.” During lunch time, this group would attempt to proselytize those not wearing the shirts. Unbeknownst to the blue shirts, many students secretly despised the blue shirts routine but no one ever did anything about it. Finally, a small group of courageous atheists decided to protest this practice by wearing black shirts that read in large, white, bold letters “ATHEIST.” It was lunchtime on a Thursday. The atheists sat at the same table peacefully eating their lunch. All seemed to be going well until a vice principal followed by a few Blue Shirts approached the table. He ordered the atheists to turn their shirts inside out or to put on a jacket so that the word “ATHEIST” could not be seen. The reason given was that the vice principal had received concerns from several students that the word was “offensive.”
Due to the tyranny of the majority, his decision won with little opposition. The actions this particular administrator took were wrong for various reasons. Because of the First Amendment of the Constitution, the atheists who protested had the right to free speech. If the blue shirts wanted to spread the message of Christianity at lunch, that's fine, but the school had better be prepared to let atheists—in addition to Muslims, Jews, and Hindus—spread the message of their respective religious viewpoints as well. Would the school have made a group of Muslims turn their shirts inside out if they were to pull the same stunt the atheists did? Probably not. Either all religious views should be allowed in a public school setting or none of them should be.
There is a double standard when it comes to religious expression in America. Those who believe in a higher power of some sort are generally met with acceptance and tolerance for their beliefs. Those who do not believe in a higher power however are often met with discrimination, rejection, or just outright cruelty. But why is this? Is it simply the negative stigma given to atheists by the media or do atheists bring on some of this prejudiced behavior themselves?
Before I move into my main argument, I'd like to clear up some of what I see are some common misconceptions about atheists. Many people believe that atheists are “angry with God” or “rebelling.” This is simply not true. Atheism is an ideology of reason based on empirical evidence: they see no proof of a god so they don't believe in one. The best analogy I can give is that an atheist doesn't believe in a god for the same reason that you (probably) don't believe in unicorns, werewolves, or vampires. However, many atheists accept that a god could exist provided that there was enough empirical evidence to prove it (not to be confused with agnosticism, which is the position that the existence of god is inherently unknowable). This is where the line is drawn between two kinds of atheism, strong and weak. How a person responds to the statement “God exists” determines what type of atheist they are. If they believe the statement is false, they are a strong atheist. If they believe the statement is probably false, then they are a weak atheist. Recently it was discovered that atheists were among the most despised and least trusted minority in America.
A 2006 study by the University of Minnesota to find the most despised and least trusted minority in America showed that 40% of those surveyed believed that atheists were the group that did not fit in at all with their view of American society. When asked what group they would most disapprove of their child marrying into, atheists once again topped the scales with an astounding 48%. Given that the terrorists we are in a war against just so happen to be radical Muslims and that the wacky fundamentalist Christians are bent on bombing abortion clinics, such results are quite surprising. How often does anyone hear on the news about some atheist who bombed a church? What you may hear is enough prejudice against atheists to make even Archie Bunker blush. On a December 18, 2008 Fox News and Friends newscast, Reporter Michelle Malkin stated that “making fun of and mocking them” is one of the best solutions in dealing with atheists. In 2009, it is quite surprising that such inappropriate comments would be allowed to fly under the radar. Replace the word “atheist” in Malkin's comments with any other demographic—immigrants, homosexuals, Muslims, African Americans, etc.—and she would have had her ass handed to her by the ACLU quicker than you can say “discrimination.”
Unfortunately, it is not only the media who is so quick to erroneously portray those without faith as “bad.” In a speech to Georgetown University in Washington on October 7, 2009, Former Prime Minister Tony Blair stated “Those who scorn God and those who do violence in God's name, both represent views of religion. But both offer no hope for faith in the twenty first century.” Yet another inappropriate comment lumping atheists in with the terrorists and radicals blowing crap up. With the media and former world leaders sippin' on the haterade, maybe it isn't so surprising that people are quick to be prejudiced against atheists and other nonreligious groups. Then again, could atheists be fueling these flames of discrimination themselves?
Neo-Atheism is a fairly new movement of atheism that consists of anti-religious activists. Mascots for the movement include Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. Books such as Dawkins' God Delusion and Hitchens' God is Not Great have both reached the New York Times Bestseller list. These three authors have sparked so much outrage that many of their opponents have dubbed the trio “The Unholy Trinity.” Not only have the three offended the religious through their writing, they have also offended people in their media appearances. The most notable of these events was Hitchens appearance on Hannity & Colmes on May 16, 2007. The topic was over Rev. Jerry Falwell's death. Rather than show any sign of remorse or sympathy for Falwell's family or the people that his death affected, Hitchens took this as an opportunity to attack Falwell's personal character as well as his religion, claiming “it’s a shame there isn't a Hell for him to burn in.”
Let it be known now that I do have a great deal of admiration for Hitchens and I do generally agree with many of his views. What I do not agree with is the way in which he handled the situation that was presented to him, especially when Americans find enough reasons to dislike atheists as it is. When he sits in front of the camera with the title “atheist” and makes cruel remarks on national television towards a man who just died, he is not only representing himself, but an entire demographic of people. His remarks do not only reflect poorly on himself, but on atheists everywhere. The sensationalist media already contributes enough to the poor perception of atheists in the American public's mind. Hitchens' remarks did nothing but contribute to this negative image.
In addition to these authors who write books attacking the notion of religion, atheist groups have also hurt their cause by going on the offensive. During the 2008 holiday season, the Freedom From Religion Foundation made their presence known in a government building in Olympia, Washington. Next to a nativity scene was a sign that read “"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” While the sign was intended to “get people to think” as co-founder of the organization Dan Barker says, offending Christians during one of their most important times of the year probably isn't the best option. Such an action is not getting people to think about anything other than Dr. Seuss' classic child's story How the Grinch Stole Christmas.
The negative stigma of atheism in the minds of the American public is certainly a problem and one that currently sees no end in sight. Ultimately the problem is being fueled by both sides of the spectrum. On the one hand, we have the sensationalist media using scare tactics and the spread of misinformation about a demographic to get ratings. On the other hand, that demographic is going on the offensive against the majority. The problem with this is that it is up to atheists to improve their image. Rather than going on the attack, atheists should be attempting to inform the public about their beliefs rather than attacking the views of the majority. People are not going to be willing to listen when their beliefs or even their very livelihoods are being attacked. I say this speaking from experience. As an Atheist, my views are often attacked and I have no desire to listen to the Christian who tells me that I am going to burn in Hell for eternity because of my lack of belief. Likewise, the Christian is not going to listen to the Atheist who tells them that they are intellectually inferior because they believe in a higher power. If atheists can make the effort to educate the public on their views and why they stick to them, they may not grow significantly in number, but at the very least they could make a more tolerant society for all to live in.
