Even if violence against atheism is far less prevalent, I'm not positive it's non-existent. Yes, I've never experienced it living in the north, but accounts I've read of the atmosphere elsewhere make violence sound at least plausible. Maybe the statistical difference has more to do with circumstance, such as atheists tending to be whole families, Christians (so far) having less irrational fear of "recruiting," and lower visibility.

To our knowledge, there is no such thing as "atheist bashing." If there were cases of such harm, one would expect to hear about them in the media and the courts, or at least in the common knowledge of unbelievers. So, where are the cases? On many occasions we have put this question to leaders in the nonreligious community and have never been presented with a single compelling example.

I maintain that my statement was a fair summation of your position. And that position is false, whether you define "atheist-bashing" as atheists being targeted for discrimination either through legal or illegal means, or even using your own more narrow definition given by Austin Cline. Are you seriously claiming that there are no known examples of "verbal confrontation with" or "denigration of" atheists? Not even one? If so, that position is plainly and obviously wrong. Even if we limit "atheist-bashing" to physical violence alone, there are proffered examples. Consider the Smalkowski case litigated by American Atheists last year.

Now, I know what you're going to say: even if Smalkowski's claims are completely true, that is not as serious as the physical violence suffered by gays and other minorities. No random mobs are seeking out and targeting atheists for beatings. And I agree! I said very plainly that other groups have suffered worse discrimination than we have. I don't know of anyone who's disputed this. But, again, this does not validate your claim that "there is no such thing", that there is not "a single compelling example". There is such a thing and there are compelling examples.

I stand by what I said: you're trying to strengthen your position by exaggerating it into an absolute, but that effort is misguided and incorrect, and it actually weakens your argument rather than strengthening it. It does not trivialize the prejudice and discrimination suffered by gay people to point out that they are not the only group that has faced hostility from a majority. It does not make their injuries any less important or any less in need of redress. But the same is true of atheists. We do have a public image problem to overcome, but we do also have civil rights issues. These two battles can and should be fought together. We should be doing that, not quibbling over terminology or, worse, trying to undercut the efforts of people who are fighting these battles like Nisbet has done.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/259240.htm

What I rejoined to Ebon above is completely consistent with our first two essays on this matter:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=grothe-dacey_24_2

http://www.djgrothe.com/Response_to_Tabash_and_Downey.pdf

Another case of 'atheists aren't important citizens, let's not pay any attention to them or listen to them, and maybe they'll go away.'

When are we going to get some respect?

Politcally speaking, the more closely associated (indistinguishable?) a minority is with a political party, the less respect that group will receive from either side. Democrats know they've got them in their pocket, whether they help them or not, while Republicans don't bother trying for them because they're a lost cause. The trick is, I think, for a minority to grow its political clout through voting numbers and then make each party fight for their vote by being responsive (swithcing sides) in reaction to positive and negative developments.
There are many factors that can frustrate this strategy especially for atheists. For one thing, we are not a voting "block", i.e. readily identified like racial minorities.
If you're perceived as "the other guy's" constituent by a legislator or executive, then why should they help you? Because, it's their job? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

So, I take back what I said earlier. There does appear to be some evidence that Bush really did say those awful things about atheists.

What I found most curious was a memo at the end of the 40-page pdf download. Here it is:

MEMORANDUM FOR C. BOYDEN GRAY

FROM: NELSON LUND

SUBJECT: Correspondence Asking that the President Apologize to America’s Atheists for his Campaign Remarks

"Attached for your signature is a draft response to a complaining letter from the President of American Atheists, Inc. I had to strain to achieve a polite tone, but I think I succeeded without giving the correspondent unnecessary comfort.

The letter alleges some campaign remarks by the President and his Illinois campaign chairman that might not be too easy to defend, if in fact they were made. I thought it best to ignore these specific allegations."

This is about as outrageous as the alleged remarks. Although the author realizes that the remarks were wrong, if they were true, he decides it is best just to ignore the whole thing. He doesn’t try to find out whether the remarks were made or not, or to apologize if Bush did say those things. He just ignores it. Another case of 'atheists aren't important citizens, let's not pay any attention to them or listen to them, and maybe they'll go away.'

When are we going to get some respect?

Atheism is much easier to hide than the other two and still practice. You can't hide your skin color without continuous and onerous effort. You can't hide homosexuality without denying your identity and attraction. However, it's simple to hide being an atheist - I do it every day with no effort whatsoever. I don't discuss religion with my co-workers or extended family, so only my wife and some college friends know my status.

Ditto for everything you mentioned here. I suspect there'd be a lot more discrimination if non-belief were plainly evident somehow. Only my xian wife and 1 friend know about my atheism.

I'm not 100% sure I would have gotten to where I am career-wise if I were a known atheist from the beginning (though, that may be an unfair assumption about my boss). I wasn't hiding it before, I just deconverted late. In fact, I used to be like one of those guys that Yenald Looshi mentioned, reading my Bible at work (in different foreign language translations per my mood). My co-workers still come to me with questions about Xianity/the Bible and I still answer them without letting on that I don't believe it anymore.

On a side note, I have heard from a fairly credible source that George the Elder's remarks about atheists not being patriotic are not true. Apparently, there is no evidence that he actually said what was claimed he said.

I don't know if this proves anything, but here's a site that claims to do just that, with documents from the Bush Presidential Library.

Bush documents

On a side note, I have heard from a fairly credible source that George the Elder's remarks about atheists not being patriotic are not true. Apparently, there is no evidence that he actually said what was claimed he said.