David Koepsell is the executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism and an associate editor at Free Inquiry.
Recently, our colleague and friend Matt Nisbet reopened an old wound by suggesting on his blog, Framing Science, that atheism is not a civil rights issue. Nisbet’s post referenced an article written by Austin Dacey and D.J. Grothe that appeared in the February/March 2004 issue of Free Inquiry, titled “Atheism Is Not a Civil Rights Issue.”* Nisbet’s article used the same title, but emphasized it with all-capital letters (see http://scienceblogs. com/framingscience/2007/06/atheism_is_not_a_civil_rights.php#comments).
Ironically, Nisbet posted that entry during the same week that the Supreme Court continued what is likely to be a long-lasting swing toward the past, back to an old place we really do not wish to go. But it helps prove my point—namely, that the civil rights of all religious dissenters, including atheists, are tenuous.
As I researched my lengthy article on “The Law and Unbelief” for Tom Flynn’s The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief (Prometheus Books, 2007), I was astounded to learn just how recently atheists and other religious dissenters have been discriminated against. I don’t mean poor treatment that would prompt reactions such as “Oh, people are mean to us” or “Goodness, but they sure don’t like us.” Rather, as recently as the 1960s, in about a dozen states in our republic, if you didn’t believe in a divine system of reward and punishment or if you denied the existence of a deity, you were actually denied civil rights. You couldn’t hold office, you couldn’t vote, and, in some states, you could not give testimony in court—unless you lied and took the Bible as the guarantee that you would tell the truth in court. Most scholars consider voting, holding office, and testifying in court to be parts of the panoply of civil rights.
Simply put, even a bit of research dispels Nisbet’s thesis. The famous Torcaso decision in Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), in fact, was about just this. A gentleman who happened to be atheist was ineligible in Maryland to be a notary. This is not a mere embarrassment; this is a violation of a civil right. Was he merely a “whiner” for complaining?
In various states, before Torcaso, atheists and others who denied the existence of a hell or God were basically sitting ducks for violence, because they could not give testimony in court if assaulted—unless, of course, they swore on the Bible. A wise West Virginian court had this to say about the atheist’s prospects, given that state of affairs: “His goods may be stolen, his dwelling broken into by the midnight robber, or burned by the incendiary; his child may be beaten, or his wife murdered before his face, and the offender [will] escape because of the incapacity of the injured man to give evidence against him.”
The dying declarations of atheists were also treated as inadmissible or untrustworthy, in complete contrast to those of believers. Thus, killing atheists for sport was encouraged, and it happened. In a 1920 Missouri case, two men were found by a jury to be guilty of murder. They had shot an allegedly peaceable, elderly, ill man. His sons found him dying from several bullet wounds, and he told his sons the manner and cause of his fatal injuries, as well as who the assailants were. The trial court did not permit the defendants’ attorney to inquire into the dead man’s alleged atheism. The Supreme Court of Missouri then held that the trial court’s exclusion of evidence of his atheism was an error serious enough to undermine the verdict. The case was remanded back to the trial court with instructions that the evidence of the victim’s atheism be admitted and could be used to help undermine the dead man’s credibility. Those murderers then went free.
Torcaso not only finally brought justice to atheists but also to a host of religious minorities who also deny the existence of a god or hell. We must be ever vigilant in preserving the progress we have made so far and achieving yet greater justice.
The rest of us know, and experience, continued debasement by society in public and without apparent shame for violating our rights. Consider that, according to a recent Gallup poll, most Americans would rather vote for a homosexual than for an atheist. Some Supreme Court justices have publicly stated their opposition to Torcaso and its application of the First Amendment to the states. They would have no legal problem with a return to state-sponsored religion. We can only guess where Samuel Alito and John Roberts will come down on this issue. We cannot be cavalier.
Moreover, when the blogosphere erupted with this renewed debate, numerous firsthand accounts of present-day, ongoing discrimination surfaced. Among those people posting their stories of discrimination, several noted job loss due, in their estimation, to their stated lack of belief. Others spoke of lost custody cases and even isolated acts of violence. One account concerned a murder prompted by the victim’s stated nonbelief. While neither as systematic nor as frequently reported as violence against other minorities, it is clear that, despite claims to the contrary, some atheist bashing is going on even today.
Now, Nisbet, Dacey, and Grothe all make the perfectly appropriate point that, as of now, atheists’ civil rights are not being systematically violated, and that the level of apparent discrimination against us is lower than what is experienced by other, more visible minorities. Thus, they conclude, we do not need a “civil rights movement” for atheists modeled after those of the past. This is true. There is now no need to march in the streets. Rather, we must continue to be vigilant against backpedaling and maintain our vocal and forceful presence in the courts, where the laws still protect us.
However, we should also stand ready, if the need arises—as it well might with this Supreme Court—to follow the model of successful civil-rights movements and fight for what we have so slowly gained and so tenuously hold. Denying our past or present treatment or minimizing the way we are misperceived by a hostile public does nothing to guard us against backsliding and is an affront to a long and sordid history.
*The article by Austin Dacey and D.J. Grothe attracted a response by civil liberties attorney and Council for Secular Humanism board member Edward Tabash in the June/July 2004 issue titled “Atheism Is Indeed a Civil Rights Issue.”
CFI SUMMIT
OCTOBER 24-27 2013
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
Joint Conference of the Council for Secular Humanism, Center for Inquiry, and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
The transnational secular humanist magazine
Renew your FREE INQUIRY subscription