Can you trust me? Sure you can; I do have a beard, after all.
And that’s not just me talking. According to a 2010 study by the Journal of Marketing and Communications, people view those with facial hair as more trustworthy than those who are clean shaven. That’s right, I’ve got science on my side.
But my long-standing allegiance with science has a few major pitfalls. I’m not allowed to believe in cool things like dragons, unicorns and an omniscient being that watches our every movement from behind the clouds.
And, unfortunately for me, it is this world view that tosses me in with one of the most consistently untrusted groups in America … atheists.
Being atheist, or believing that there is no god, has drawn negative stereotypes for centuries. Believers often accuse nonbelievers of lacking the moral fortitude that comes along with conventional religion.
Now, I’m not going to argue that I have the best record with morality, but to say that all atheists are rambunctious drunkards and vandals isn’t right either. We’re people, just like anyone else.
To say that atheists are oppressed in America would certainly be a stretch. After all, unlike some other minority groups, we choose to be this way. We don’t have separate drinking fountains and we can certainly get married (although being married by a judge certainly lacks the romance).
But during this election cycle, the issue of religion has consistently made headlines. Candidates such as Rick Perry have made appealing to Christian Evangelicals their selling point. Herman Cain has even been quoted as saying he wouldn’t hire someone based on their religious background.
Basic principles of religious freedom live in our country’s roots. In an election, as in everything else, religion (or lack thereof) shouldn’t matter in a free society.
But time and time again, politicians argue with one another over who better represents America’s Christian Evangelical “family” values. Why is this still an issue in America, when most other countries around the world have embraced a secular government?
Americans’ general disdain for atheists can be dated back to our founding as a country. The first European settlers in America came here to escape religious persecution from across the Atlantic.
Quakers, Catholics, Puritans all had one thing in common: they were religions based off the teachings of Jesus Christ. America as we know it was founded by devout Christians who were fleeing an increasingly secularized Europe.
Aside from our annoyingly skeptical life outlook and our devilish tendency to eat our newborn babies whole, why do Americans still hold non-believers in such contempt? Almost every other minority group has gained significant ground towards equal civil rights in the past half-century, with the exception of atheists.
According to a Gallup poll in 2010, while at least 90 percent of Americans would have no problem with a black, female, Catholic or Jewish president, 49 percent said they would not vote for an atheist.
Ironically, non-belief is one of the fastest growing religions in America. According to the Pew Research Center, roughly 16 percent of Americans are now unaffiliated with a religion. Atheism has the numbers to work with, but not a lot of support among those numbers. To many Americans, atheism is still a swear word.
In the 21st century, most old fashioned Christian religions have melted together as far as public tolerance goes. Methodists can be the neighbors of Lutherans, vote for a Catholic and have their children taught by Baptists.
Comparative to past generations, there is a remarkable amount religious tolerance shown by American voters. Minor religions such as Islam and Buddhism are represented in Congress by roughly the same proportion as their populations in the United States. Nonbelievers, however, are left in the dust as far as representation goes: in the 112th Congress, not a single politician was unaffiliated with a kind of religion.
With the number of non-believers drastically increasing around the world, it may only be a matter of time before we get some kind of an acknowledgment in our political culture.
Until then, I’ll be forced to hide my religious views behind the scientifically credible layers of my infallible facial hair.
Jess • Nov 3, 2011 at 12:16 pm
I think there is fault on both sides. Freedom of Religion also means the Freedom from Religion. In response to “Get out of my Religion,” the government can’t force a church to marry anyone. I guess they could try but it would be a dumb move that basically no politician would try and it would violate the rights of the church. I doubt the religious community would stand for that. I assume you’re referring to gay marriage in that statement. I have not read or seen any legislation or proposals that even hint at violating the rights of the church in such a way. There is no need to when you can just get married at the local court house.
But this article isn’t about gay marriage. Religion is a powerful force traditionally and politically. I think there is an utter lack of respect on both sides. The religious community is very protective about their rights (as they should be- as everyone should be) but tends to get up in arms when someone doesn’t agree with their views. Religion has been a powerful force in politics lately from women’s rights to marriage choices to just about everything. All the republican candidates have a stance on religion. Most of them are religious. That’s perfectly fine. As long as they don’t try to push their personal religious views on everyone. Just a non-religious person should not push their personal views on the church. The road goes both ways in this. Also you may think atheism is a choice but I somehow doubt it. I’m not an atheist but some of my friends are and I highly doubt any of them would describe their views as a ‘choice’.
Those are my thoughts. Agree with them or not. It is your right.
Larry Linn • Oct 29, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Social commentator and former alter-boy George Carlin sums it up, “Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bull*** story. Holy S***!”
Dianna Narciso • Oct 29, 2011 at 9:38 am
We don’t “choose” to be atheists. Seriously. Could you really just choose to believe in gods? We can’t choose to not believe anymore than a Christian could simply choose to stop believing. Atheism isn’t a choice, it’s a realization.
Barry • Oct 28, 2011 at 4:28 pm
“…we choose to be this way.” Really? Can we choose to now begin believing? No, we can’t.
Get out of my religion • Oct 28, 2011 at 4:16 pm
First, let us get the facts straight. Puritans weren’t feeling a secularized Europe. They were fleeing the Church of England.
Second, why the hate for Christians? Does Judaism or Islam embrace your philosophy? It seems atheists have the recent history of pushing themselves upon religion (Christianity). It is atheists who file lawsuits to tear down all religious symbols that may scar their view. It is atheists who constantly scream about their right to no religion. No one forces you to go to church. Why the need to villainize religion (Christians in particular)?
What about my right to get your politics out of my religion? That’s where I stand on all social issues. I’m for the right of same sex legal partner contracts (or whatever you want to call it), but I’m against the state telling my church to conduct such ceremonies as “marriage”. I’m against you telling my church we can’t carol downtown, or display a nativity scene. Doesn’t the 1st amendment say my “free exercise thereof” (religion) shall not be prohibited?
All societies have a moral foundation based on religious history. Religions have evolved and shown ability to adapt to modern times. Most support families and close communities. To demand freedom from religion is to erode those pillars of tradition.
In this piece, Mr. Dyer exercises three freedoms protected by the 1st amendment. Isn’t it ironic that these rights are endowed by God, and that Christians have been responsible their protection?