In 1988, George H. W. Bush said, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic." To be honest, this is just the sort of comment we should expect from a Bush, but is it, to any degree, representative of popular American thought? Let's explore the issue of discrimination against atheists.

According to a 2006 study by the University of Minnesota, atheists are the least trusted minority group in America, coming in below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians. This study was based upon a telephone sampling of 2,000 households. The study also found that the higher a person's education, the more tolerant of atheism he or she is.

Interestingly, East Coast and West Coast Americans are more tolerant of atheism than Midwesterners. Is this the result of a difference in education, or simply the result of differing community standards? Only time and more study can tell.

I should point out that the study also found that Americans are less likely to "allow" their children to marry atheists. I guess some people still stick to the Biblical tradition of the father owning the daughter until she is sold or given to her husband (who she can only marry with the father's permission, or at the father's command).

The reason for this lack of trust, according to this study, was a popular belief that atheists are self-centered and don't care about others.

In an article from the Minnesota Daily, Cole Ries, the president of the Marantha Christian Fellowship, disagreed. "Atheists seem to be concerned with the human good," he said. "Where I differ as a Christian is that I'm more concerned with God's will than man's will."

Surprisingly, I actually agree with this man (on this point, at least), and I find his statement to be particularly revealing. While atheists are concerned with making the world a better place in which to live, Christians are busying themselves with prayer, and worrying about making it into heaven.

Of course, he also said that he doesn't believe anybody is really an atheist, so I guess our agreement on that one statement was just a rare coincidence.

Earlier this year (2007), a Gallup poll showed some disturbing trends. Their goal was to determine whether people would vote for an "otherwise well qualified" candidate for president, from a number of groups. Atheists were the only group for which a majority of those polled responded "no."

Here are their results. A "yes" means they would vote for that candidate (if well qualified). A "no" means they would not vote for that candidate (no matter how well qualified).

I find these results particularly disturbing. Though I certainly don't agree with the Catholics, Jews, or Mormons on issues of religion, I would never refuse to vote for one of them for that reason alone. If a candidate with whom I disagree on religion is otherwise well qualified, he or she will get my vote. It's as simple as that.

The only time when religion comes into play in these debates is when an issue is directly related to religion. The creationism vs. evolution debate in public schools comes readily to mind. Other than these issues, religion has nothing to do with politics. Not a thing. It's not a political issue.

Many groups actively discriminate against atheists. Church groups are included, of course, but what self-respecting atheist would want to have anything to do with a church group, anyway? From a legal perspective, of course, any private group can discriminate against anyone else. Public groups are a whole other matter.

Let's look at a classic case: The Boy Scouts of America. The BSA actively discriminates against homosexuals and atheists.

Here's a quote from the official BSA website:

"...[D]uty to God is not a mere ideal for those choosing to associate with the Boy Scouts of America; it is an obligation..."

Indeed, if you look through their official publications, you'll realize that the BSA actively discriminates against atheists and homosexuals, and is proud of that fact. That's disgusting, but it's perfectly fine from a legal, Constitutional point of view. Or at least, it would be if the BSA were a private organization. However, the BSA relies heavily on tax funding for their operations. Most BSA meetings are held in public buildings, such as schools. BSA operations cost American taxpayers millions of dollars every year, and they discriminate against atheists and homosexuals. Par for the course, perhaps, but certainly not acceptable.

There are even clauses in some State Constitutions that are discriminatory toward atheists. While most of these have been challenged on (national) Constitutional grounds, and are no longer in force, the text remains.

Arkansas Constitution: "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."

North Carolina Constitution: "The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...." This was challenged and overturned in a court ruling known as Voswinkel v. Hunt (1979).

South Carolina Constitution: "No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

Tennessee Constitution: "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."

Texas Constitution: An official may be "excluded from holding office" if he/she does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

In his book, Atheist Universe, David Mills describes a chilling encounter. In the late 1970s, a faith healer was heading to his town, and he planned to organize a protest. While Mills is, of course, an atheist, this protest didn't really have anything to do with the Christian faith per se. It was about fraudulent faith healers. But that made little difference.

Mills was concerned about the possibility of violence against him and his fellow protesters. When people are so emotionally connected to a faith healer, who knows what they might do when challenged. So, he went to the local police department to solicit protection during his protest.

He writes:

"The first police official with whom I spoke asked, "Is you gonna protest fir him or 'gin him [i.e., the faith healer]?" When I responded, "Against him," the official said that he himself planned to attend the Miracle Rally and would not hesitate to spit directly in my face as he walked past our demonstration."

He then explained that he spoke to another policeman who said that if there was any trouble, no matter who started the fight, they would arrest Mills, because he was trying to interfere with God's work.

Later, he telephoned a police sergeant who said, "To hell with you, buddy. No policeman wants to protect a goddamned atheist. I hope somebody bloodies you up good."

I guess some backward, narrow-minded, policemen think their religion is more important than the Constitution. What a disgrace!

It should be obvious by now that there's a lot of work to be done. Intolerance and discrimination are so rampant that many have said that atheists are the only minority it's still okay to hate.

The discrimination is bad enough as it is. But it gets worse. People know that atheists are mistrusted, and they use that to their advantage.

The faith healers are shunned even by most religious moderates. Their fakery is obvious. My mother is a devout Catholic, who firmly believes in miracles. Even she can see through the painfully obvious humbug spewed by the faith healers. Yet there are still those who flock to these frauds. They cost millions of dollars and countless lives.

James "The Amazing" Randi is a magician turned debunker of the paranormal. His great talent is spotting fakery, and he's very good at it. He knows a magician's trick when he sees one, and that includes the tricks used by the faith healers.

In the 1980s, he investigated the claims of many of these faith healers. His findings were reported in his book, titled, THE FAITH-HEALERS, a truly excellent read.

A section of this book is devoted to faith healer, Leroy Jenkins. After Randi repeatedly asked Jenkins to establish his validity, he finally responded: "I am not going to participate in any of your publicity stunts. You are obviously an atheist who is attempting to obtain publicity..."

We can plainly see from the context that the word "atheist" is written with no small amount of disdain. Jenkins, apparently, thinks that just saying someone is an atheist is all that is needed to refute their claims. Sadly, many of the faithful agree with that idea.

Later in the book, we are introduced to Peter Popoff, one of the really nasty faith healers who Randi exposed as a fraud in the book (and earlier, on the Tonight Show). After Randi exposed him, Popoff wrote this letter in response to all the inquiries:

"The so-called Great [sic] Randi, a magician and avowed atheist, is trying to discredit anything and everything that is supernatural...."

I should point out, first, that Randi doesn't try to discredit anything and everything supernatural. He tries to expose frauds. And he correctly points out that, to date, we have seen no evidence to support the idea of paranormal phenomena (thus, these miracle workers are indeed frauds).

But the point here is that simply by pointing out that Randi is an "avowed atheist" is all Popoff had to do. The faithful will see that dread word, "atheist," and they assume, somehow, that this means the person in question can do no good.

Think of this. Popoff may or may not actually be a Christian (I don't pretend to know or care). But his performance certainly is a Christian one, and his audience are Christians. Obviously, they will react negatively to atheists and atheism, and this negative reaction goes above and beyond simple theological differences.

If we were to alter Popoff's statement, and replace the words "avowed atheist" with, say "avowed Jew" or "avowed Buddhist," do you think the response would be the same? I don't think so. I think that atheism has become such a stigma in our American society that it goes beyond disagreement.

Christians and Jews may disagree, but they don't hate each other in the same way that Christians hate atheists. Note that I didn't say Christians and atheists hate each other, because most atheists are very tolerant people (many of them are simply--and quite understandably--upset about how religion is driving public policy).

When I worked at a bookstore, I was at the sales counter one day, when some people were looking at books, and I overheard a piece of their conversation. They were looking at a book, the description of which mentioned "professional atheists." One of them laughed a vile sort of laugh, and said "I didn't know atheism was a profession. Christian haters."

They're entitled to have their opinion of course. Unfortunately, it seems like this couple are representative of popular opinion in America. With intolerance on this scale, is it any wonder that the atheists are starting to fight back? Seriously, until the Christians started getting militant and making people worry about another round of "witch burnings" (just put "atheist" in place of "witch), whether that term is used literally or figuratively, was anyone really worried that "In God We Trust" was on the money? I think not.

It's simple. Religious intolerance creates an atmosphere in which religion must be fought. If the Christians would grow up, get over their petty differences, and realize that atheists are just as good as they are, the world would be a happier place. And maybe, just maybe, people wouldn't fight them quite so passionately.