Andy’s post—and the ensuing discussion—about racial prejudice got me to thinking about the broader nature of prejudice, racial and otherwise. And then, coincidentally, Jim Gimpel sends along a link to this study by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis, and Douglass Hartmann:
Despite the declining salience of divisions among religious groups, the boundary between believers and nonbelievers in America remains strong. This article examines the limits of Americans’ acceptance of atheists. Using new national survey data, it shows atheists are less likely to be accepted, publicly and privately, than any others from a long list of ethnic, religious, and other minority groups. This distrust of atheists is driven by religious predictors, social location, and broader value orientations. It is rooted in moral and symbolic, rather than ethnic or material, grounds. We demonstrate that increasing acceptance of religious diversity does not extend to the nonreligious, and present a theoretical framework for understanding the role of religious belief in providing a moral basis for cultural membership and solidarity in an otherwise highly diverse society.
I suppose it’s possible to envision a group less tolerated than atheists, but surely atheists are at the top —or, perhaps, bottom. (See also these earlier posts.)
Could this change? Perhaps James Wood, in reviewing Terry Eagleton’s new book, has his finger on a species of atheism that might render it less anathema:
What is needed is neither the overweening rationalism of a Dawkins nor the rarefied religious belief of an Eagleton but a theologically engaged atheism that resembles disappointed belief.
{ 9 comments }
A couple years ago an article in Slate pointed to this Gallup poll, seeming to show more resistance to electing an atheist president than any of the other minority groups listed (including gay, Mormon, etc., although the poll did not include a Muslim descriptor).
I think the whole ‘atheist’ identifier tag is a bit unsettling.
Are all non-believers, by default, atheists? Or, can one simply be without belief in a deity?
Atheist means not believing in a deity. a-theist.
That’s what the word means.
I am happy and proud to be considered anathema by the kind of people who would put such a label on me for not believing their fairy tales. What small minded hateful little people they are. How weak is their own faith that they can countenance no disbelief? How poor is their religion that it teaches them intolerance and prejudice? I’ll keep my logic and my reason and the Universe all around me and their anathema shows me I’m in better company with Atheists.
Edgell, Gerteis, and Hartmann are clearly unaware (or at least not attributing) of Philip Jenkins’ work at UPenn on anticatholicism.
“The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice” was stunning–I was embarrassed to even read it and felt I needed to shower and atone myself afterwards.
@Eric: No, atheist means believing there is not a god. Agnostic means not believing in a deity.
@mparker: You’ve shown exactly why religious folks tend to not like atheists. Self-identified atheists tend to have a very condescending attitude toward religion–”fairy tales” as you call it.
Broader point: I suspect that a non-religious person (agnostic) wouldn’t face these prejudices. But when people hear “atheist,” they hear it as synonymous with “anti-religious” (like mparker above), not “non-religious.”
Anybody have evidence for that hypothesis?
I am even more skeptical of this work after reading this God and Country USN&WR piece. These are not the kind of trends one expects if the original thesis is true.
Regarding the polemics in the above posts, let’s acknowledge the difference between atheism and antireligious bigotry. While not exclusive, they are not synonymous either.
@Adano, um…what?
@Eric: Note that the placement of “not” moved in my original comment. More clearly:
Atheists actively believe that there is not a god.
Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve that there is a god.
Comments on this entry are closed.