http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodAtheist

1. That to equate the plight of atheism with the plight of racial or sexual minorities is not only a strained analogy, but is unstrategic. It appears that most everyone now agrees with this, despite the fact that certain atheist leaders have repeatedly equated the atheist cause with blacks, gays or women. (I have quoted such leaders of the atheist movement many times during this kerfuffle online. Again, it is good that most everyone now disagrees with such strong comparisons).

2. That certain atheists calling on members of the atheist movement to be "single issue voters" and elect atheists for no other reason than their atheism is absurd (one atheist lobby in D.C., and a number of influential atheists call for such electoral political mobilization).

3. The fact that it is difficult for atheists to be elected, while horrible, is not in itself a civil rights issue nor a civil rights violation. As we said in 2004: "Every natural born citizen over thirty- five has a right to run for president, but no one has a right to the presidency." It would be nearly impossible for a Buddhist, a Satanist or a deep ecologist to be elected to higher office, but no one honestly argues that their civil rights are therefore being systematically violated. No one has a civil right to have their unpopular beliefs and worldviews be more accepted either in electoral politics or in public opinion.

4. Many of the problems atheists face (and as something of a professional atheist, problems that I have worked for years to change) are not civil rights violations. As we said in one of the original articles: "Consider the Pledge of Allegiance. The legal issue is whether the “under God” clause lacks a secular purpose, not whether plaintiff Michael Newdow has a civil right to send his daughter to a school in which she never hears his worldview contradicted. Or consider the public funding of private religious schools. Nonbelievers may object to their money being used in this way. But that’s not discrimination; its taxation. Nonbelievers oppose the encroachment of church on state because they (like many liberal religionists) want a secular government. That explains why secularism is an atheist issue; it does not show that atheism is a civil rights issue."

5. Regarding so-called "atheist bashing." To quote from the original articles (which, again, appear to not have been read by many posters): "When we said we know of no compelling example of “atheist-bashing,” we did not mean to deny the existence of such incidents. Indeed, in our work with the Center for Inquiry [and the Council for Secular Humanism] over the years, both of us have heard countless firsthand accounts from rationalists in communities across the nation. What we deny is that these incidents rise to a level of severity, frequency, and scope that is comparable to gay-bashing, to say nothing of racially motivated attacks. Gay rights groups documented over 2,445 incidents resulting in bodily injury or death in 1997 alone. Victims were severely beaten, pushed down flights of stairs, or shot. A gay nightclub in Atlanta was bombed, wounding several with shrapnel. By contrast, the only physical incidents highlighted by Margaret Downey involved children bullying children. Further, because homophobic, racist, and misogynist violence are relatively frequent and widespread, they create climates of fear and intimidation that the rationalist community simply has never experienced. If you doubt this, just show up at any meeting of atheists, thousands of which are held peacefully in public libraries, on college campuses, and in restaurants each year from Boston to Baton Rogue."

6. That a better approach is needed -- rather than to frame the situation of atheists in America as one of "a struggle to attain our civil rights," atheists should work to change public opinion and increase their mind-share (as Dawkins attempts to do with his work to "raise consciousness" on our issues of concern.)

From the original article:

"Beginning in the 1950s and increasing in the 1960s and 1970s, cultural conservatives founded think tanks and educational organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Concerned Women for America, and Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, among many others. At that time, in the heyday of the sexual revolution and civil rights movements, their point of view had virtually no visibility or respectability in public discourse. To the utter astonishment of the liberal political establishment, these organizations have come to exert overwhelming influence in American public policy, media, and in education. A generation of their cultural warriors has successfully entered and transformed the establishment. Consider that alumni of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (a young William F. Buckley was ISI’s first president) filled several key positions in the Reagan administration, including National Security Adviser. Its fiftieth anniversary gala featured addresses by George Bush, Antonin Scalia, Rick Santorum, and Mitch McConnell, who credited ISI in part for the Reagan revolution.

The strategists behind these organizations did not set out to win the civil rights of cultural conservatives. They already had them, just as atheists do. Rather, the goal was to popularize the culturally conservative point of view and to bring it to bear on public policy. In a similar way, the Center for Inquiry has succeeded by positioning itself to be the authoritative voice and advocate for the secular, scientific outlook in our society. As a think tank rather than as a civil-rights pressure group, CFI is sought by national news media and opinion makers for expert commentary. As a publisher of popular magazines and a sponsor of educational and campus programs, the Center for Inquiry reaches hundreds of thousands of people each year. By focusing on educating the public about scientific naturalism, rather than on emancipating atheists, CFI hopes to improve the social standing and influence of all those who dissent from the orthodoxies of the day."

7. As I have said in print and publicly many times, the fact that atheists do have their civil rights in America doesnt mean that we shouldnt continue defending our civil rights, just as all Americans should: the challenges we face because of this Supreme Court are major. Again, just because we atheists currently do have our civil rights, it doesnt follow that with this Supreme Court that we will always have them. We do need to defend the civil rights we currently have. Should we atheist activists primarily rally our atheist base around the notion that they need to wage an all-out civil rights struggle, or instead around notions regarding how to best increase mind-share. The gay rights movement is a good example in this regard: They have spent much time and capital working to change public perceptions, even while they work to attain the civil rights that atheists already have in America.

I believe the question of atheism and civil rights is an important discussion worth atheists' attention. I hope that such discussion can take place without the vituperation and personal attacks so prevalent among our cultural competitors. The blogosphere tends to heighten rhetoric, which can obfiscate important discussion.

Atheists do have a tough time in America and we have much to learn from the struggles of women, blacks, and GLBTs. But rather than all the arguing that atheists are as oppressed as racial and sexual minorities (as certain atheist leaders have said, and to which we originally responded with these articles years ago), I think a much more strategic, honest and ethical route is what we proposed in the original op-ed, and along the lines of what Dawkins and others say now—working to “raise consciousness,” to raise awareness and increase mind-share. What Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens are doing is raising consciousness, not liberating an oppressed people.

As I have said for years, this should be our focus rather than strained comparisons with the oppressed.

The original articles:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/grothe-dacey_24_2.htm

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

As an atheist, I don't find my life significantly impacted by the religious beliefs of others. However, it is clear that some are.

Religion is a polarizing subject, and when polarized people discriminate against those they believe to be their polar opposites.

At least that's my opinion ... and I'm sticking to it ;-)

Sagredo: Evolution is a fact, not a theory. Billions of facts, actually. Darwin's theory is about how evolution occurs. Nobody believes every word of the Bible, even if they think they do. The Bible says the sky is a solid "firmament" with doors, and that Cain's descendants were living thousands of years after the Flood wiped out everybody but Noah's family. Findamentalists have a number of tortured explanations of these absurdities, but these explanations themselves make it clear that belief cannot be "literal". The other topics are left as exercises for the reader.

Mokurai: I am a Buddhist. We are sometimes accused of being an atheistic religion, which is incorrect. We allow our members to believe in any gods they like, or none. It simply isn't relevant to the problem of Suffering. Although the God who supposedly commanded the genocide of the Canaanites, men, women, and children, in Exodus is more a part of the problem than the solution.

The problem is the same as at the beginning of the modern Civil Rights movement, when whites and blacks told Vernon Johns (Martin Luther King's predecessor) not to rock the boat, and similarly with MLK, SNCC, the Panthers, the Black Muslims, and everybody else. And some got killed for it.

Those who put safety above truth and justice are summer soldiers and sunshine patriots, as that "Commie" "atheist" Thomas Paine put it long before. "He that stands it NOW deserves the love and thanks of men and women."

You have my love and my thanks.

best,
David

Incidentally, I e-mailed Grothe today and received a reply from him shortly thereafter. I want to write him one further response, and I'll post an update shortly.

OTOH I don`t recall God ever giving man any particular rights.

He does admit that it would be virtually impossible for an atheist to be elected in the current climate, but I don't know why he doesn't consider that a civil rights issue.

I also found this very strange. He seems to make concessions and then try to rationalise them. For example:

And being barred from the Boy Scouts hardly affects one's basic life prospects. Besides, most experts agree that Scouting is not a "public accommodation" in which everyone has a right to be included.

It's not about 'basic life prospects', it's about a principle, one of standing up against discrimination. I found his views on this bemusing, to say the least.

I think you hit nail on the head when you pointed out that just because our struggle is not as gruelling as that of the blacks or women, doesn't mean it isn't a civil rights issue. It's a variable scale, not an absolute.