Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Atheists Identified As America’s Most Distrusted Minority

Rate this topic


Toolboxnj

Recommended Posts

Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study

What: U of M study reveals America’s distrust of atheism

Who: Penny Edgell, associate professor of sociology

Contact: Nina Shepherd, sociology media relations, (612) 599-1148

Mark Cassutt University News Service, (612) 624-8038

MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (3/28/2006) -- American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.

Edgell also argues that today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.

Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said. “Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good.”

The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.

The study is co-authored by assistant professor Joseph Gerteis and associate professor Doug Hartmann. It’s the first in a series of national studies conducted the American Mosaic Project, a three-year project funded by the Minneapolis-based David Edelstein Family Foundation that looks at race, religion and cultural diversity in the contemporary United States. The study will appear in the April issue of the American Sociological Review.

This is a most interesting article on the topic of religion and American culture. I've always known there was a stigma attached to being an atheist, so I've kinda kept it "in the closet" for lack of a better phrase. But I didn't think that atheists would score below Muslims, homosexuals and illegal immigrants!

I think this is true because of two reasons:

1/ Aggressive liberal atheists have used the PC police to mop up Christian culture in America and people on all sides of the political spectrum don't appreciate it (whether you think it's good or not)

2/ Christian conservative groups have used atheists as a great fundraising figure i.e. to win the "war on Christmas"

There are probably other reasons as well.

What do you guys think on the subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is true because of two reasons:

1/ Aggressive liberal atheists have used the PC police to mop up Christian culture in America and people on all sides of the political spectrum don't appreciate it (whether you think it's good or not)

2/ Christian conservative groups have used atheists as a great fundraising figure i.e. to win the "war on Christmas"

Both definitely true. I also think it's because there's this stereotype of the atheist who always walks around with his head down and a frown on his face because atheists are utterly miserable people with no sense of purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheism is also connected with socialism and Communism whether we like it or not. Many conservatives I chat with on the Internet and in school blame Stalin's gulags and purges on atheism as if he did it in the name of atheism which is utterly ridiculous. Bill O'Reilly calls Leftists "secular-progressives" which in a sense is correct, but does nothing to help atheists that are *gasp* right-wingers.

I found this interesting in the article:

Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

I thought this was interesting because my g/f is a liberal Catholic (or a "CINO" - Catholic in name only) and her father took umbrage in fact that I was an atheist when he first learned of it. But eventually he learned to accept it and it really isn't an issue in the house much - he doesn't even bring it up anymore. It's also helped by the fact my g/f is more of a deist than a Christian today after going to college and learning more about the Catholic Church from a historic point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that in "Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry" "Americans" is assumed to be religious Americans. But yes, of course non-suicidal atheists are more untrustworthy than potentially bomb-packing Moslems. Better to fear getting blown to bits than to ever have to face one's inner lies. Death means Heaven; self-honesty, Hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this was interesting because my g/f is a liberal Catholic (or a "CINO" - Catholic in name only) and her father took umbrage in fact that I was an atheist when he first learned of it. But eventually he learned to accept it and it really isn't an issue in the house much - he doesn't even bring it up anymore. It's also helped by the fact my g/f is more of a deist than a Christian today after going to college and learning more about the Catholic Church from a historic point of view.

My fiancee is the same, but no one in either of our families knows that I'm an atheist. I would prefer to keep it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reason why atheists are so distrusted is that it allows people of faith to construct straw-man arguments against them. One guy sues over "under God" and suddenly there's a "massive consipracy to eliminate God from America"; someone else says that a Nativity scene isn't appropriate on public property and there's a "war on Christmas" ...

Another reason is that many Christians - especially evangelicals - believe that atheists are under the influence of the Devil ... so that automatically makes them Satan worshippers. Since they also generally believe that "America is a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles", atheists are not only spiritual, but political enemies.

Also, Christians equate a belief in God with being moral, so "if you don't believe, you're an immoral person." They believe atheism is the single causal factor in pornography and prostitution, abortion, homosexuality, drug use, alcoholism, evolution .... basically name anything that gets Christians pissed off and atheism caused it, because it's "Satanic."

You can't argue with these people - all you can do is leave the light on for them when their faith comes crashing down around them.

:lol:

Edited by synthlord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, Christians equate a belief in God with being moral, so "if you don't believe, you're an immoral person." They believe atheism is the single causal factor in pornography and prostitution, abortion, homosexuality, drug use, alcoholism, evolution .... basically name anything that gets Christians pissed off and atheism caused it, because it's "Satanic."

Your other points make sense, but I take issue with this one. I have never heard a single Christian (kooks on internet messageboards notwithstanding) who has said that atheists cannot be moral. I have also never heard one blame the things you just listed on atheism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard some of those specific things blamed on the influence of atheism, and even heard the syllogistic argument: since Satan causes atheism, and Satan is the cause for all sin, then atheists are Satanic earthly agents that defend and propogate sinful behavior.

I'm a recovered former Methodist, and even in that sect (which is a bit less dogmatic than Catholics or modern evagelism) I heard similar statements made. I don't think these are widely held beliefs among Christians, but the more vocal and defensive ones have said these things. (Watch TBN if you have cable, and you'll hear comments of this type come up all the time.)

In my experience - when I've discussed atheism with others - the reaction is more pity than distrust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reaction I've seen lately (on that messageboard I just posted on) is condescension. Yes, I agree that there are some very vocal Christians who say wacko things. But your last post made it sound like all Christians are like that.

In reality, I think very few are. Most Christians are generally good people who, for whatever reason, have trouble letting go of their religion. But, in my experience, most do not think that atheists are evil, horrible people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reality, I think very few are. Most Christians are generally good people who, for whatever reason, have trouble letting go of their religion. But, in my experience, most do not think that atheists are evil, horrible people.

I don't think it's a case of them thinking of us as evil, but as being non-desirable. It's the old NIMBY thing: "they are all nice people and such but I don't want my daughter dating one". That sort irrational stupidity is what I'm talking about. It's not that they really dislike them, they may even consider them friends but when it's down to brass tacks they really don't approve of them.

My wife is CINO as well but her parents are quite staunch Catholics. It wasn't until we'd got engaged that she mentioned I was an athiest. If they had not known how good I was for her and how well we go together, say at the outset of our relationship, then I imagine they would have been against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of it is paranoia especially from the likes of John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly with their "War on Xmas" each year. I'd have to say that if I saw a nativitiy scene on public property in my town I wouldn't do much about it; maybe just write a letter to the editor.

I've accepted the fact that there are people of faith and knowing the faith could be a strong advantage in business. For instance, the large Syrian Jew population in my town has specific needs per their religion and needs to be catered to - and they have the cash to do business.

It's distrubing when one is "distrustful" of a group of people whether they are Jews, atheists, homosexuals or religious fundies. I'm not saying it is akin racism, but it stinks like hell; we are all individuals and should be treated as such. If my neighbor is gay does that make him "less trustworthy" than a neighbor who is black.. or black AND gay?

That's what has been stewing in my brain all day and I needed to post it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the war on Christmas is very real. I'm not talking about demanding that religious symbols not be displayed on public property, because I agree that they should not.

What I'm talking about is the way that some secularists want to have the word "Christmas" banned from all public property, simply because the first 6 letters spell "Christ." Insisting that schools refer to Christmas break as "Winter break" is nothing short of ridiculous. And calling Christmas trees, Holiday trees? Give me a break. When did it become taboo to wish someone a Merry Christmas? Instead, people now say Happy Holidays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually a little surprised, about the marriage part. As an atheist, I consider myself to be compatible with a girl of any religion (think type '0' blood). In other words, I have no problem going along with their "bedtime story", because I have no "fairy tale" of my own to conflict with theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but their "fairy tale", assuming they really believe it, contradicts reality. Why doesn't that bother you? Would you date a girl who really thought gnomes were real and went looking for them several hours each week? And insisting that they were real even though she could never find any?

I would call a girl like that crazy, not someone I wanted to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's distrubing when one is "distrustful" of a group of people whether they are Jews, atheists, homosexuals or religious fundies.

Why? As long as you meant the religion of Judaism, and not the race, all of those are choices, and one can and should judge a person on the choices they make. It sounds like you're not objecting to any particular judgment of any of those choices, but rather to judging people on their ideological affiliation as such.

In other words, why would you refrain from distrusting a fundamentalist, an Environmentalist, or a Maoist? (i.e. those of explicitly and virulently anti-rational ideologies) You would do so at your peril.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? As long as you meant the religion of Judaism, and not the race, all of those are choices, and one can and should judge a person on the choices they make.

I think it is precisely because it's a choice that people are more distrustfull of people of differing religions than that of race. I think it's more likely for me to hear " he may be from <enter name of country> but at least he's a good Catholic" as opposed to " he may be an atheist but he's at least <enter race>." That is because religion addresses things like immortality, socialization, etc where race really has to do with skin color. So when it comes down to it, people are more likely to forgive race etc than religion and philosophy.

Though I do agree with you about disregarding a person's inherant philosophical choice. I've contributed to other threads about dating/marrying someone with another religion or political philosophy so I won't rehash it here. It is one of the isses that I think can and should influence how you react to a person, I just don't think it's the only thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm talking about is the way that some secularists want to have the word "Christmas" banned from all public property, simply because the first 6 letters spell "Christ." Insisting that schools refer to Christmas break as "Winter break" is nothing short of ridiculous. And calling Christmas trees, Holiday trees? Give me a break. When did it become taboo to wish someone a Merry Christmas? Instead, people now say Happy Holidays.

Well, if it's a common usage thing, I don't see the problem. Where I see a problem is when school boards and city councils get involved to debate something which is trivial. People on both sides get defensive and go balistic about something that is really not that important, time and money is wasted on it, ancillary comments are aired which inflame opponents, and all it does is aggravate people during an already-stressful-enough season of celebration.

Personally I use "Happy Holidays" in public, not because I don't want to promote "Christmas", but because there are four primary celebratory events within 5 weeks - Thanksgiving, Hannukah, Chistmas, and New Year's Day. It's an all-inclusive phrase that saves me time. For a Christian to be offended by "Happy Holidays" (as O'Reilly asserts) would be more of a behavioral issue regarding short tempers or paranoia rather than "an attack on religion". "Happy Holidays" is a frikkin' traditional holiday song, for crying out loud ... It's nothing less than inciteful for someone like O'Reilly to assume it's malicous in nature (but, that's part of his schtick, so it's not even worth getting upset about).

There are just some things that aren't worth the time of day - a lesson that vocal secularists and Christians all need to learn. We've got real church/state issues that deserve the time, energy, and resources of secular activists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a Christian to be offended by "Happy Holidays" (as O'Reilly asserts) would be more of a behavioral issue regarding short tempers or paranoia rather than "an attack on religion". "Happy Holidays" is a frikkin' traditional holiday song, for crying out loud ... It's nothing less than inciteful for someone like O'Reilly to assume it's malicous in nature (but, that's part of his schtick, so it's not even worth getting upset about).

I think you're missing the point on why this is an issue. Yes it is a waste of time, but it's not that Christians are offended by "happy holidays." This actually all started because liberal atheists decided to sue stores because they put "merry christmas" in their windows. And yes, it is malicious in nature. This whole thing really got going just after the 2004 elections. Remember the jesusland map that got released the day after Bush won? How is that not an attack on Christians?

The jesusland nonsense and the happy holidays versus merry xmas issue all came from the same group of atheists. Which basically comprises Dems that were upset over the election and decided to throw a hissy fit and start suing stores and local governments because manger scenes somehow offend them. As an atheist myself, these people really irritate me because now I can't make it known what I am without being labeled an idiot or worse.

post-1602-1144689605_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is something I really noticed this year. It seems to me the only people that say Merry Christmas any more are Hindus, Muslims, and Jews. At least that was the way it is with my customers. Maybe it's since they are the ones who are usally offended, that they really don't care and are into the season. Though I agree that the ones who are so outrageously offended are people that are atheists desperate to be in a victim class that they have to search out things to be violated by. They automatically assume that the white guy is the one in the office that's a Christian.

Though that reminds me of the joke: how do Jews/Moslems/Hindus celebrate Christmas? They gather hands around the cash register and sing what a friend we have in Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...start suing stores and local governments ...
I understand the basis for suits against government. I didn;t realize that private firms had been sued to. On what basis? Do you remember?

It seems to me the only people that say Merry Christmas any more are Hindus, Muslims, and Jews.
In my office, I wish typically wish Christians Merry Christmas and they -- knowing I'm from India -- wish me happy holidays in return. I guess we're both trying to wish the other person for what we think they're celebrating!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my office, I wish typically wish Christians Merry Christmas and they -- knowing I'm from India -- wish me happy holidays in return. I guess we're both trying to wish the other person for what we think they're celebrating!

Good point. Being the only non-desi at work for the longest time, I've learned to extend wishes to people on Divali and Eid. Though I recently hired a guy from China. This is the second person I've hired from China and as irony would have it, both are devout Christians.

Still, like alot of people, I don't wish them a Merry Christmas first out of fear of offending them. If they offer the greeting first, I'll respond in kind. On my part, it's really a knee jerk reaction built in from years of doing sales/customer service. On a cost benefit analysis basis, you'd rather not please someone than offend someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being the only non-desi at work for the longest time, I've learned to extend wishes to people on Divali and Eid.
Every now and then we have a thread that discusses the significance of some festival -- XMas, Thanksgiving, Kwaanza, St. Patrick's Day, etc. -- to people at large and to Objectivists in particular.

The last time I was chewing on a thread like that I realized that the Indian festival of "Divali" was actually pretty good from a philosophical perspective. It is supposed to signify the victory of a good (demi-god like) king over a bad (demonic) over. Like XMas, people spend a lot of money on gifts, cards and decorations. Houses are illuminated; and guess the story that goes with that: the Goddess of wealth does the rounds on that night, and if your house is lit really well, that's inviting for her. No sacrifices! It's also the night for fireworks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This actually all started because liberal atheists decided to sue stores because they put "merry christmas" in their window

Sorry but I dont believe this, do you have a source?

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...