From the article:

Clark Vinson, a Baptist-turned-atheist who grew up in Irving, said he believes he has been discriminated against in the Bible Belt because of his lack of religion.

“I was on the verge of sealing a contract for $105,000 a year for a school district in the area for counseling services,” said Vinson, who was a therapist at the time. “I lost the contract suddenly.”

He said a friend who worked for the district told him a school official was disturbed after seeing a Darwin fish on his car.

This type of discrimination is exactly what atheists and others who lack religion or religious supernatural belief deal with throughout the United States, from the East to the West to the North to the South.  The dominance of religion and expectation that everyone at least believes in some deity leads to some level of innate distrust of the nonreligious in even the most liberal of areas. We don’t always see examples such as this because it is avoided by atheists hiding or at the least not being open about our lack of faith.  If not, discrimination such as this would happen much too often.  If we look at history, as the nonreligious civil right movement is growing and there are more open atheists, we are already and will undoubtedly see more of this in the future.

Where is the Outrage?

Giving Mr. Vinson the benefit of the doubt – there are two sides to every story, after all – this business contract was virtually a done deal until the school official realized that he was an atheist.  You can’t get much more bigoted and hateful than that.  Apparently he was a good enough therapist to work in the school system before the revelation of his lack of belief.  The contract wasn’t lost because of anything he had done, but because he lacks religious beliefs.  Is this the tolerance they teach their children in that school system?

If Mr. Vinson was a member of a different religion, would that have lost him the contract?  I doubt it.  If such discrimination against a Christian, Jew, or even Muslim did happen and this was reported, it is likely that there would be public outrage.  How much stronger would the reaction be if he canceled the contract after seeing a Jesus fish on the car instead of a Darwin fish?  Our country was founded partly on the notion that we should all be able to worship or not worship how and if we choose.  Where is the outrage that a public employee, paid for by tax money, is discriminating against atheists?  We are protected by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment just like anyone else.

Silent Discrimination

This is not an isolated incident.  There are many instances of such discrimination that have been reported, and undoubtedly many more that have not been.  If it were not for the fact that Mr. Vinson’s friend worked for the school district and was able to tell him why he lost the contract, he would have never known the act of discrimination committed against him.  I propose that this “silent discrimination” is much more insidious.  It allows anti-atheist bigots to discriminate freely while it robs the nonreligious of their ability to seek redress for such actions.  How many more atheists have been discriminated against without whistle-blowers to let them know of the injustices committed against them?

I leave you with one more point.  The nonreligious are constantly criticized for being intolerant of religious people, but this is blaming the victims.  Many of us are intolerant of religious belief, but we live and work very well with those who hold such beliefs.  Our family members, friends, and colleagues are religious.  When was the last time you heard of an atheist canceling a deal or firing someone because he found out they believe in a god?  The converse happens much too often.  Too many religious people simply can’t get over the fact that someone can not have any religious belief at all, and clearly have no problem with discriminating against us.

Edit:  To not give away too much, it actually ends on a very inspirational (and funny) note.

Now it’s time for something actually on topic.  Randall Balmer [barnard.edu], professor of American religious history (yay, roughly my academic field!) and author of God in the White House: A History, was interviewed by John Stewart on The Daily Show last Thursday.  When asked what type of person would be the last elected as president of the United States, it is no surprise that atheists came last.  Don’t criticize Balmer for this, he was simply expressing the facts of the bigotry (or to put it more mildly lack of trust) that the majority of religious Americans have against atheists.  He also expressed one of the biggest problems which we nonreligious face: that although religion does not equal morality and is not necessarily required for a person to be moral, much of the U.S. doesn’t see it that way.  With this false premise in mind, the bigotry we see should not be surprising.

A partial transcript (stolen) from Friendly Atheist [friendlyatheist.com]:

Jon Stewart:… Do you think we could ever elect an atheist?… Now, we have a black president. Could an atheist – What will come first: black, woman, Hispanic, gay, Jew, Atheist? Where do you go?

Randall Balmer: I think, pretty much, in that order…

JS: [Laughs] I hope somebody wrote that down!

RB: And I think atheist is probably at the end. Because we Americans want to know about our candidates’ faith. What we really want to know is: Are they good people? Are they moral? Are they trustworthy?

JS: But when did “good person” get intricately linked to faith? Why can’t goodness be a virtue without fear of Biblical punishment or any of those other…

RB: Well, it certainly can. But in America… religion is a proxy for morality… the only way we can frame the question is ask, “Do you go to church?” “Are you a religious person?” And I think the problem is that we, as the voters, take those kind of blithe responses at face value and we should interrogate those claims…

BSA policy is to deny the participation of nontheistic members and employees and expel those already involved. Thus the letter asks Obama to break with tradition because taking on the title of honorary president would send a message that discrimination against atheists and agnostics is acceptable.

I must admit that I was, as a young child, a cub scout – the lowest level.  I enjoyed it, but I’m glad that I didn’t stick with it, because there was an aspect never made clear to me: atheists are not welcome.  What a problem this would have caused when I finally lost my faith!  This is a problem that unfortunately many have faced.  I would have had to either hide my atheism and continue through the ranks lying (certainly not acceptable in Boy Scout ethics) or had to leave, knowing all my achievements were invalidated simply due to my lack of belief.

I enjoyed my time as a scout and I still believe scouts can learn a lot and do a lot of good as members.  I completely support the BSA’s right to exist and to set their membership criteria as they wish – no matter how bothered I am by those criteria, and support anyone’s right to be a member.  My problem has always been that in many areas the BSA has been given special access to tax-payer funded facilities, such as those in public schools.  No organization that discriminates religiously may legally take advantage of tax-payer funds or tax-payer provided facilities.  When my money is going towards a group in which I, many of my friends, and many of my fellow Americans are barred from participating in simply due to our religious viewpoints or sexual preferences (let’s not forget they discriminate against gays too), I have a big problem.

For this very reason, our president, especially this one who is supposed to break down walls of prejudice and discrimination, should have no part of such an organization.  The symbolism of the honorary presidency would help erode the claims of change we have heard so much about.  I have confidence that President Obama will do the right thing.  I hope he proves me right.

In the words of the foundation’s president Mikey Weinstein:

Our amended complaint is specifically designed to further stab at the throbbing unconstitutional heart of darkness that comprises the systemic fundamentalist Christianity so pervasive and pernicious in today’s American armed forces.

So what has been added to the suit?

[...] examples of what Weinstein called “the noxiously unconstitutional pattern and practice of fundamentalist Christian oppression” within the armed forces includ[ing] attempts to convert Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan[,] comments from two soldiers, including a chaplain, that appeared in Christian missionary publications about such activities, including their desire to distribute Bibles.

The lawsuit also criticizes the Army’s 2008 manual on suicide prevention, quoting it as promoting “religiosity” as a necessary part of the effort and describing “connectivity to the divine” as “fundamental.”

Read the article to see the rest of the added claims.

One of the aspects of what is reported that bothers me the most is Defense Department spokeswoman Eileen Laine’s response, which in short says that they have only received less than 50 complaints.  Although I question this number, let’s take this at face value for argument’s sake.  What difference does this make?  Since when is the Constitutionality of something determined by how many people complain?  It’s irrelevant and I don’t believe for a second that the Defense Department doesn’t know that.  It’s disgustingly disingenuous, to say the least.

To steal from and modify something from a commenter on Pharyngula, here’s a message to Ms. Bunting from “Secular Discrimination Report:” We’re here, we’re atheist, get used to it.

I’d write more, but biologist P.Z. Myers over at Pharyngula does a great job.  Be sure to comment on her article (registration required) and let her know exactly what you think.

Never-the-less, I wish you all a great holiday, no matter what you celebrate: Hanukkah, the New Year, and especially a very merry Christmas. Surprised? Well, as far as the U.S. Government is concerned, Christmas is a wholly secular holiday. The First Amendment required that once it became a legal holiday it became secular.

A merry secular Christmas to you all!

Marlotuck Says:
December 1st, 2008 at 11:28 am

As a believer in and of God, I’d just like to say that I am in full support of these billboards as they a) recognize that a group of people need a cohesive voice b) recognize the need for a particular group of people to know that they are not alone in their beliefs or non-beliefs and c) because it asserts First Amendment Rights that apparently Fundamentalists believe were only granted to them.

At the risk of being unoriginal, I am including the same selection from the beginning of the column as Professor Myers.  It displays best how obviously hateful and mean-spirited the writer must be.  As one commenter (comments are now closed) said best: “Shameful…”

Thanksgiving must be a terrible time for atheists. They have no God to thank.

They do not have the privilege of gathering with family and friends to express gratitude by saying: “Praise God from whom all blessings flow.” An atheist on his deathbed faces serious uncertainties. Gazing upward, he pleads: “Oh God, if there is a God, please save my soul — if I have one.”

Darwin Day 2009: Keep Science Education Scientific

September 17, 2008

Dear IHS Supporter:

Please Donate to help us with our new project: Darwin Day.

Darwin Day is a global celebration of science and evolution on the birthday anniversary of Charles Darwin.

The Darwin Day Celebration is now administered by the Institute for Humanist Studies. We are very excited because February 12, 2009 is the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth. We will assist groups throughout the world with their plans and events to mark this day.

Our staff is currently working feverishly to redesign and upgrade the Darwin Day website. We are packing in as many features as we can so groups around the world can easily use the site to plan and promote their events. Included in the new features will be: a list of potential Darwin Day performers; a streamlined events listing; a way to share photographs; instructions on how to issue a press release; and guidelines on how to get your local government to proclaim Feb. 12 as Darwin Day in your community.

In the future we hope to hire a Darwin Day coordinator to focus solely on establishing Darwin Day as a yearly secular holiday celebrating reason and science.

What can you do to help?

Your donations now will help us achieve our goal of promoting science, reason and evolutionary theory. Now is the time to give. The bicentenary of Charles Darwin’s birth is a major opportunity to strengthen our efforts to keep science education scientific.

Please give what you can: http://humaniststudies.org/support.html

As always we are very grateful for you support,

Nancy Buxton
Development Coordinator

If you prefer to mail your donation, download our donor form here: http://humaniststudies.org/ihs_donorForm.pdf

Please mail your completed form and donation to:
Institute for Humanist Studies
48 Howard Street
Albany, NY 12207