Research on political intolerance "ominous" for atheist Americans

March 2, 3:40 PMSecularism ExaminerPaul Fidalgo

Previous Next

2 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Secularism Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

James L. Gibson, professor of government at Washington University in Saint Louis, has some dire data for atheists.

I first encountered Professor Gibson's work when conducting my thesis research in political management. In 2007 he conducted a study on intolerance in American politics which proved invaluable to me in my work and ongoing research. I have cited it often, particularly the juicier bits concerning atheists just beating out Nazis and the KKK -- and generally equaling antidemocratic militarists -- in their favorability among respondents.

Now, Gibson is part of a task force on religion and American politics for the American Political Science Association, which plans to produce a book on the subject next year. At the website of the Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media and Public Policy, Gibson posts some of his findings, and they continue to bode very ill for atheists in the political realm.

Specifically, Gibson posits an association between what he calls "religious traditionalism" and political intolerance, and not just toward the nonreligious. Who are these religious traditionalists? Gibson explains:

Traditionalists are those who attend religious services frequently, who believe in God and the devil, and especially who assert “moving away from God” has caused many contemporary social problems. I will refer to this as “religious traditionalism.” According to this indicator, 31 percent of the American people score high on traditionalism, while 34.7 percent score low. 

(Those who indicate that "moving away from God" is the cause of societal problems alone make up a whopping 61 percent of Americans.)

While his article is meant to show that the intolerance of traditionalists is not limited to antipathy for atheists, Gibson calls his findings "particularly ominous" for nonbelievers, and it's hard to disagree. 47 percent of traditionalists favored denial of political rights in some form to atheists, a number that Gibson rightly calls "politically potent." There are real consequences to such intense dislike among so much of electorate toward one law-abiding group.

But Gibson also goes further, making a somewhat startling recommendation tha goes somewhat counter to the aims of the atheist movement, such as it is, at least in terms of the New Atheism/instigator branch of nonbelievers. Gibson writes:

Those who casually admit their atheism in discussions over public policy (e.g., scientists who deny the existence of God) ought to heed these findings and be cautious in revealing their true beliefs (or lack thereof). Some seem to wear the badge of atheism proudly, but they should be advised that nearly a majority of Americans would, if they had their way, deny freedom of speech to those who are against all religions and churches. For many Americans, atheism is an illegitimate political position and must therefore be prohibited from entering the marketplace of ideas.

Gibson is not suggesting that atheists shut up and hide, but as a purely practical matter he is obviously advising careful vigilance to nonbelievers; or at least an active awareness of the political climate. But though he counsels caution, he offers his findings as a rallying cry for future research that will serve the cause of protecting American democracy "from those who would define some viewpoints as unacceptable," and fostering greater tolerance even among those who have the greatest propensity toward it.

Of course, this is a coincidental subject for a post of mine, considering that my previous article concerned the phenomenon of "overtolerance," of political correctness standing in the way of exactly the kind of open discourse and debate that Gibson would like to see preserved. But they are two sides of the same coin. In one case, differences are acknowledged, but discussion of them is forbidden. In the other case, differences are stamped out so only one viewpoint dominates. But no matter which direction the pendulum swings, either extreme knocks it off its hinge.