Twitter icon

Facebook icon

About us
Our beliefs
Is this your first visit?
Contact us
External links

Recommended books

Visitors' essays
Our forum
New essays
Other features
Buy a CD of this site
Vital notes

World religions
-Christian definition
 -Shared beliefs
 -Handling change
 -Bible topics
 -Bible inerrancy
 -Bible harmony
 -Interpret the Bible
 -Beliefs & creeds
 -Da Vinci code
 -Revelation, 666
Other religions
Cults and NRMs
Comparing Religions

Non-theistic beliefs

About all religions
Main topics
Basic information
Gods & Goddesses
Handling change
Doubt & security
Confusing terms
End of the World?
True religion?
Seasonal events
Science vs. Religion
More information

Morality & ethics
Absolute truth

Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious freedom
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
Ten Commandments
Abortion access
Assisted suicide
Death penalty

Same-sex marriage

Human rights
Gays in the military
Sex & gender
Stem cells
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news


Religious Tolerance logo



Part 2 of 2:
Active discrimination against Atheists.

Madison, WI is the first U.S. city to protect Atheists.

horizontal rule

This topic is continued from the previous essay

horizontal rule

American Atheists symbol 11 Active discrimination against Atheists (Cont'd):

The belief that Atheists should be discriminated against has been embedded in American law for centuries:

  • Public office: Eight states (AR, MA, MD, NC, PA, SC, TN, and TX) have exclusionary language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, official oath of office, or in the body of their constitutions. Most of them specifically exclude all Atheists and Agnostics from holding public office. These phrases are historical relics, left over from earlier times. The First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution supersedes these statutory laws and sections of state constitutions. It thus nullifies the effect of the above clauses. Still, it would be almost impossible to get citizens of any of these states to amend their constitution to end the religious discrimination. They remain as a continuing expression of hatred and distrust of Atheists.

  • Conscientious objector status: Throughout much of the 20th century, a person could not be recognized as a conscientious objector unless their beliefs against participating in a war were backed up by their religion which included a belief in God. Again, belief in any deity was sufficient. Since 1967, belief in God is no longer required. According to

"...a registrant needs only a conscientious scruple against war in all forms to obtain conscientious objector status. A conscientious scruple against war is an objection to war based on moral beliefs. A conviction that war is wrong, arrived at solely on intellectual and rational grounds, does not entitle one to exemption as a conscientious objector." 2

Actually, it is not that simple in practice. A person applying for conscientious objector status must prove that their beliefs have been consistent for some time. Documentation proving a history of personal opposition to war is important.

horizontal rule

Sponsored link.

horizontal rule

Many Americans would not vote for a Presidential candidate who is an Atheist:

The average American will not vote for an otherwise qualified candidate who is an Atheist:

  • Cliff Walker, webmaster of "Positive Atheism"  made the following observations:

    • 1986: Wendy Kaminer wrote that as late as the 1980s: "....intolerance for atheism was stronger even than intolerance of homosexuality."

    • 1999: The Gallup Organization concluded that being an Atheist was "the most discriminated-against characteristic of the eight tested in the research." Only 49% of American adults would vote for an otherwise qualified presidential candidate if he was an Atheist; this compared to 59% who would vote for a homosexual candidate and over 90% who would vote for a black or female candidate. 3

  • Rasmussen Reports stated in 2006-NOV-20 that 60% of voters said they would never consider voting for a presidential candidate who is an Atheist. 4

  • A public opinion poll was conducted by Opinion Dynamics for Fox News during 2006-DEC. It found that 50% of voters would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who is an Atheist. Only one category was worse: 53% would be less likely to vote for a Scientologist. The flip side is that 5% would be more likely to vote for an Atheist; 4% would prefer a Scientologist. 5

  • Gallup conducted a poll on 2007-FEB-09 to 11. Results are shown in the above image. They asked American adults whether they would vote for "a generally well-qualified" presidential candidate nominated by their party with each of the following characteristics: Jewish, Catholic, Mormon, an Atheist, a woman, black, Hispanic, homosexual, 72 years of age, or someone married for the third time. Only 45% would vote for an Atheist. Atheism is the only category for whom most adults would not vote.  6

Bias in election of the President

horizontal rule

2011: Suprise development: Atheists no longer the most unfavorably viewed group:

In mid-2011-AUG, there was joicing among some Atheists as a result of data collected by "Robert D. Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, and David E. Campbell, a political scientist at Notre Dame. ... they have collected data indicating that the tea party is 'less popular than much maligned groups like 'atheists' and 'Muslims'.'"  7 They wrote:

"... in data we have recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about — lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like “atheists” and “Muslims.” Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right." 8

horizontal rule

Sponsored link:

horizontal rule

2015-MAR-31: Another surprise development: Madison WI extends protections to Atheists:

The Common Council of Madison, WI amended Section 39.03 of the Madison General Ordinances to add "nonreligion" as a protected class.

Actually, this is not a particularly important development, because all or almost all human rights ordinances at in municipalities and statutes at the state level protect persons from discrimination on the basis of their religion. Meanwhile, courts have generally interpreted such protections as including Agnostics and Atheists.

It involved a two word addition: "religion" became "religion or nonreligion" in the human rights law that bans discrimination on the basis of housing, employment, public accommodations, and city facilities. (Public Accommodations are typically companies that serve the general public).

However, it is worth noting that Madison is not only the first city in the U.S. to expressly amend its human rights orinance to cover Atheists, but they did it with a unanimous vote in favor by its Common Council and with nobody arguing against the change. 9.10

horizontal rule

References used:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

Punctuation and grammar in some of the quotations have been altered.

  1. Frank Newport, "More Than 9 in 10 Americans Continue to Believe in God," Gallup, 2011-JUN-03, at:
  2. "Conscientious Objector," Net Industries, 2007. at:
  3. The Positive Atheism web site is at:
  4. "Election 2008: 43% Would Never Vote for Mormon Candidate," Rasmussen Reports, 2006-NOV-20, at:
  5. "Poll Recap: Mormon a Better Choice For President Than Muslim, Atheist, Scientologist," Fox News, 2007-FEB-13, at:
  6. "Americans Will Vote For Anyone But An Atheist," AOL News Elections Blog, 2007-FEB-21, at:
  7. Rachel Rose Hartman, "Survey’s surprising finding: tea party less popular than atheists and Muslims," Yahoo! News, 2011-AUG-17, at:
  8. David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam, "Crashing the Tea Party," New York Times, 2011-AUG-16, at:
  9. Eugene Volokh, "Madison expressly amends its antidiscrimination ordinance to cover atheists — who were almost certainly covered already," Washington Post, 2015-MAT-05, at:
  10. "Amending Section 39.03 of the Madison General Ordinances to add nonreligion as a protected class." Legislative Information Center, City of Madison, 2015-MAR-31, at:
  11. This is the symbol used by th American Atheists whose web site is at:
horizontal rule
Site navigation:

 Home page > Ethical groups etc > Atheism > here
 Home page > Ethical groups etc > Non-theistic groups > Atheism > here

Home page > Christianity > Christian personalities > God > Atheism > here

Home page > Ethical groups etc > Non-theistic groups > Atheism > here

Home page > Religious information > God > Atheism > here

Home page > Spirituality > God > Atheism >  here
Home page > Christianity > Christianity & other religions >  here

Copyright © 2007 to 2018, by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Latest update: 2018-SEP-24
Author: B.A. Robinson

line.gif (538 bytes)
Sponsored link

horizontal rule

Go to the previous page, or to the Atheist menu, or choose:

Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Purchase a CD of this web site

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?

Twitter link

Facebook icon

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.

Sponsored links: