Part of a series on
Discrimination
Forms Institutional Structural Statistical Taste-based
Attributes Age Caste Class Dialect Disability Genetic Hair texture Height Language Looks Mental disorder Race / Ethnicity Skin color Scientific racism Rank Sex Sexual orientation Species Size Viewpoint
Social Arophobia Acephobia Adultism Anti-albinism Anti-autism Anti-homelessness Anti-drug addicts Anti-intellectualism Anti-intersex Anti-left handedness Anti-Masonry Antisemitism Aporophobia Audism Biphobia Clannism Cronyism Elitism Ephebiphobia Social determinants of health Social determinants of health in poverty Social determinants of mental health Fatphobia Gayphobia Gerontophobia Heterosexism HIV/AIDS stigma Homophobia Leprosy stigma Lesbophobia Discrimination against men Misandry Misogyny Nepotism Pedophobia Perpetual foreigner Pregnancy Reverse Sectarianism Supremacism White Transphobia Non-binary Transmisogyny Trans men Vegaphobia Xenophobia
Religious Ahmadiyya Atheism Baháʼí Faith Buddhism Catholicism Christianity post–Cold War era Falun Gong Hinduism Persecution Untouchability Islam Persecution Jehovah's Witnesses Judaism Persecution LDS or Mormon Neopaganism Eastern Orthodox Oriental Orthodox Protestantism Rastafari Shi'ism Sufism Zoroastrianism
Ethnic/national Afghan African Albanian American Arab Armenian Asian France South Africa United States Assyrian Azerbaijani Black people African Americans China South Africa Bengali British Bulgarian Catalan Chechen Chinese Croat Filipino Fulani Finnish French German Georgian Greek Haitian Hazara Hispanic Hungarian Igbo Indian Indigenous people Australia Canada United States Iranian Irish Israeli Italian Japanese Jewish Korean Kurdish Lithuanian Malay Māori Mexican Middle Eastern Mongolian Nigerian Pakistani Palestinians Pashtun Polish Quebec Romani Romanian Serb Slavic Somali Tatar Thai Turkish Ukrainian Uyghur Venezuelan Vietnamese
Manifestations Anti-LGBT rhetoric Blood libel Bullying Cancel culture Capital punishment for homosexuality Compulsory sterilization Corrective rape Counter-jihad Cultural genocide Defamation Democide Disability hate crime Dog whistle Economic Education Employment Eliminationism Enemy of the people Ethnic cleansing Ethnic conflict Ethnic hatred Ethnic joke Ethnocide Forced conversion Freak show Gay bashing Gendercide Genital modification and mutilation Genocide examples Glass ceiling Hate crime LGBT Hate group Hate speech Homeless dumping Housing Indian rolling Intersectionality Lavender scare LGBT grooming conspiracy theory List of people killed for being transgender Lynching Mortgage Murder music Native American mascots Braves Blackhawks Chiefs Occupational segregation Persecution Pogrom Political repression Purge Racialization Religious persecution Religious terrorism Religious violence Religious war Scapegoating Segregation academy Sexual harassment Sex-selective abortion Slut-shaming Trans bashing Victimisation Violence against women White flight White genocide conspiracy theory Wife selling Witch-hunt
Policies Age of candidacy Blood purity Blood quantum Crime of apartheid Disabilities Catholic Jewish Gender pay gap Gender roles Gerontocracy Gerrymandering Ghetto benches Internment Jewish quota Law for Protection of the Nation MSM blood donation restrictions Nonpersons Numerus clausus (as religious or racial quota) One-drop rule Racial quota Racial segregation Jim Crow laws Nuremberg Laws Racial steering Redlining Same-sex marriage (laws and issues prohibiting) Segregation age racial religious sexual Social exclusion Sodomy law State atheism State religion Ugly law Voter suppression
Countermeasures Affirmative action Anti-discrimination law Anti-racism Constitutional colorblindness Cultural assimilation Cultural pluralism Diversity training Empowerment Fat acceptance movement Feminism Fighting Discrimination Hate speech laws by country Human rights Intersex human rights LGBT rights Masculism Multiculturalism Nonviolence Racial integration Reappropriation Self-determination Social integration Toleration
Related topics Allophilia Amatonormativity Bias Christian privilege Cisnormativity Civil liberties Dehumanization Diversity Ethnic penalty Eugenics Figleaf Gender-blind Heteronormativity Internalized oppression Intersectionality Male privilege Masculism Medical model of disability autism Multiculturalism Net bias Neurodiversity Oikophobia Oppression Police brutality Political correctness Polyculturalism Power distance Prejudice Prisoner abuse Racial bias in criminal news in the United States Racism by country Racial color blindness Religious intolerance Second-generation gender bias Snobbery Social exclusion Social identity threat Social model of disability Social stigma Speciesism Stereotype threat The talk White privilege

Discrimination against atheists is a negative categorical bias against atheism. Various atheist groups have considered laws, regulations and institutions affecting them to be discriminating. The Out Campaign, Brights movement, and Humanist Association of Canada are efforts to counter the feelings of discrimination and raise a positive public awareness about atheism and naturalism.

Current issues

Egypt

Egypt introduced new identity cards in 2004 which identifies each citizen of Egypt as one of three religions: Muslim, Christian or Jewish. No other entries are possible, nor is it possible to leave the space for religion blank. If atheists are unwilling to lie about their religion, they are denied many basic human rights. Egyptian atheists cannot obtain birth certificates, death certificates, marriage or divorce certificates or passports. Without identity cards they have no access to medical treatment, cannot vote, cannot be employed, cannot do business with banks, not even to withdraw money from their own bank accounts.^[1][2]

Sweden

In Sweden, generally considered one of the most secularized countries in the world,^[3][4] there exist laws that could be considered^[who?] discriminatory towards atheists:

• In many public schools, the commencement after each semester is held in a church and a priest delivers a sermon. Sometimes schools go to church to celebrate holidays. When atheists have objected to this "tradition", politicians have defended it. On 26 October 2006, the Swedish minister of schools, Jan Björklund, stated that "We should not have any general rules in Sweden that you may not continue to have school commencements or ceremonies in a church any longer. There will definitely be no change on that issue."^[5]

• In October 2006, the Swedish Humanists filed a complaint to the ombudsmen of parliament^[6] and The Chancellor of Justice^[7] about sermons arranged by the parliament because, the Humanists claimed, it was contrary to secularization, and thus discriminating against non-Christians, including atheists. Both the ombudsmen and the chancellor concluded that they had no jurisdiction over the issue and chose not to comment further on the case. Thus, these sermons will continue.

United States

In the United States, there is widespread disapproval of atheists. As a result, there has only been one openly non-theistic member of Congress in history; Pete Stark. According to Mother Jones, 52 percent of Americans claim they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist for president.^[8] More recently a 2007 Gallup poll produced nearly identical results.^[9] A 2006 study at the University of Minnesota showed atheists to be the most distrusted minority among Americans. In the study, sociologists Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerties and Douglas Hartmann conducted a survey of American public opinion on attitudes towards different groups. Forty percent of respondents characterized atheists as a group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society", putting atheists well ahead of every other group, with the next highest being Muslims (26 percent) and homosexuals (23 percent). When participants were asked whether they agreed with the statement, "I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group," atheists again led minorities, with 48 percent disapproval, followed by Muslims (34 percent) and African-Americans (27 percent). ^[10][11] Joe Foley, co-chairman for Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists, commented on the results, "I know atheists aren't studied that much as a sociological group, but I guess atheists are one of the last groups remaining that it's still socially acceptable to hate."^[12] Nevertheless, atheists are legally protected from discrimination in the United States. They have been among the strongest advocates of the legal separation of church and state.^{[citation needed]}

Rob Sherman controversy

At a Chicago press conference during the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign George H. W. Bush, at the time a Republican candidate for the presidency, is alleged to have said, “I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic,” according to Rob Sherman of the American Atheist Magazine. When asked specifically about his opinion on the separation of church and state, Bush was reported to have replied: “I support separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists”. This story has been taken up by several atheist groups.^[13][14] With these statements, Bush senior is "believed to have uttered one of the most famous quotes about atheists in American society."^[15] However, the statements have been impossible to verify. The only source for it is Rob Sherman himself.^[16]

Kevin Drum from the Washington Monthly comes to the conclusion that "apparently it's correct that no other reporters have ever corroborated the exchange" of Bush with Sherman.^[17][18]

Sherman has pointed to an exchange between Jon Garth Murray, then President of American Atheists, and White House Counsel C Boyden Gray in 1989 over the said comments which Sherman believes corroborates his version of events. In the exchange, Gray noted that "the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government."^[14] Sherman's explanation of this is that "If [Mr Gray's] client, Mr Bush, had not made those statements to me, Mr Gray would have denied that they were said rather than trying to justify the statements. If Mr Bush wanted to distance himself from the statements, Mr. Gray could have tried to create doubt about whether Mr. Bush had made the statements".^[19]

Court cases

In the 1994 case^[20] Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Supreme Court Justice David Souter wrote in the opinion for the Court that: "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion". ^[21] Everson v. Board of Education established that "neither a state nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another". This applies the Establishment Clause to the states as well as the federal government.^[22] However, several state constitutions make the protection of persons from religious discrimination conditional on their acknowledgment of the existence of a deity, making freedom of religion in those states inapplicable to atheists. These state constitutional clauses have not been tested. Civil rights cases are typically brought in federal courts, so such state provisions are mainly of symbolic importance.

In Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, after atheist Michael Newdow challenged the phrase "under God" in the United States Pledge of Allegiance, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the phrase unconstitutional. Although the decision was stayed pending the outcome of an appeal, there was the prospect that the pledge would cease to be legally usable without modification in schools in the western United States, over which the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction. This resulted in political furor, and both houses of Congress passed resolutions condemning the decision, unanimously.^[23]. On June 26, a Republican-dominated group of 100-150 congressmen stood outside the capital and recited the pledge, showing how much they disagreed with the decision.^[23] The Supreme Court subsequently reversed the decision, ruling that Newdow did not have standing to bring his case, thus disposing of the case without ruling on the constitutionality of the pledge.

Several private organizations, the most notable being the Boy Scouts of America, do not allow atheist members.^[24] However, this policy has come under fire by organizations who assert that the Boy Scouts of America do benefit from taxpayer money and thus cannot be called a truly private organization, and thus must admit atheists (along with homosexuals, and others currently barred from membership). An organization called Scouting for All, founded by Eagle Scout Steven Cozza, is at the forefront of the movement to expose perceived hypocrisy on the part of the Boy Scouts of America. Cozza and others allege that when the BSA wants to discriminate, they act as a private organization; when they want money or the use of publicly-funded buildings, venues, or property, they act as a public organization.

State constitutions

Some state constitutions in the US require a religious test as a qualification for holding public office or being a witness, though a unanimous 1961 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution override the state requirements.^[25] The states which still have religious tests on the books include:

• Arkansas' Constitution of 1874 (Article 19, Section 1) states: "Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness. No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."^[26]

• North Carolina's Constitution of 1971 (Article 6, Section 8) states: "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...."^[27]. This was challenged and overturned by Voswinkel v. Hunt (1979).^[28]

• South Carolina's Constitution of 2006 (Article 6, Section 2) states: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."^[29]

• Tennessee's Constitution/Bill of Rights (Article 9, Section 2) states: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."^[30]

• Texas' Constitution: The Bill of Rights (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."^[31]

• Maryland's Bill of Rights:^[32]
  • Article 36: "That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."
  • Article 37: "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."
• Mississippi State Constitution: Article 14, Section 265 says, “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.”

Some state's constitutions do not have an explicit religious test as a qualification for holding public office or being a witness but contain language that some have suggested implicitly discriminates against atheists. The states include:

• Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights (Article I, Section 4) reads "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."^[33] This debatably constitutes a provision that "den[ies] atheists the right to hold public office and/or testify in a court of law."^[34]

Historical examples

Middle Ages

In the European Middle Ages people were persecuted for apostasy, especially in countries where the Inquisition was active. Medieval impiety and godlessness were closer to weak atheism than avowed strong atheism, and hardly any expression of strong atheism is known from this period.^[35]

Nazi Germany

Further information: Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs#Religious neutrality

Once appointed Chancellor of Germany, Adolf Hitler banned freethought organizations and launched an “anti-godless” movement. In a 1933 speech he declared: “We have . . . undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”^[36] However, discrimination against both religious and secular non-Nazi groups was common in the totalitarian Reich, occurring among a wide spectrum of organizations, even against some of the largest religions.^[37][38]

Scripture

Qur'an

Islam's holy book, the Qur'an, is written in Arabic, therefore passages written here were translated into English. For accuracy sake, especially considering a single poorly translated word could alter the meaning of a passage, multiple translations are listed here courtesy of The Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement. The translating authors are Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Marmaduke Pickthall, and Mohammed Habib Shakir, respectively.

Of particular concern for atheists is the Qur'an's position on Apostates, or people who reject Islam. Depending on one's interpretation, the punishment for apostasy may be death.^[39]

Yusufali on 2:217 - They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

Pickthal on 2:217 - They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein.

Shakir on 2:217 - They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah's way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter; and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can; and whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever-- these it is whose works shall go for nothing in this world and the hereafter, and they are the inmates of the fire; therein they shall abide.

Al-Shafi'i, founder of one of the four schools of Sunni Islam, interpretted 2:217 as prescribing the death penalty for apostates. Al-Tha'labi, Al-Khazan, and Al-Razi all agree.^[40][41]

Yusufali on 9:11-12 - But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.

Pickthal on 9:11-12 - But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist.

Shakir on 9:11-12 - But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know. And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist.

Abul Ala Maududi used 9:11-12 as evidence that the Qur'an required the death penalty for all apostates.^[42]

See also

• Boy Scouts of America membership controversies
• Atheists in foxholes

References