Anti-Atheist Bigotry: Atheists are Totalitarian for Opposing Majority Votes
Atheists are not just closely associated with church/state cases generally, but specifically with those which deny the government authority in religious matters. Because government efforts to assume such authority are frequently driven by popular demand, especially in local matters, atheists are thus also associated with opposing democratically expressed wishes of the voters. This does not make atheists totalitarian, however, because it's not totalitarian to restrict the scope of government power.
Just the opposite is the case, in fact, but this claim serves to encourage anti-atheist hostility at the expense of truth and fairness. Unfortunately, it also plays upon a popular misperception about democracy in America: namely, that democracy depends exclusively upon majoritarian votes. Many believe that whatever the majority decides should be enacted in a democracy; to reject the will of the majority is anti-democratic.
To a certain extent this popular perception is accurate, but only because a liberal and free society must necessarily have the power to reject or overturn certain democratic votes. In the October/November 2005 issue of Free Inquiry, Shadia B. Drury writes: "[F]reedom and democracy belong to conflicting traditions. For example, liberalism is about the rule of the protection of individual and rights, limitations of executive and separation of church and state. By giving power to the majority, democracy threatens liberty. Liberal democracy is a fusion of two Western traditions." This is why democratic majorities cannot vote to reinstitute slavery, for example.
To a greater extent, though, this popular perception is inaccurate because it fails to take into account the fact that democracy is more than just majoritarian voting. Reinstituting slavery, for example, would mean denying the vote to slaves and that is obviously anti-democratic, even if achieved through democratic voting. The key is that democracy requires more than just majoritarian votes, it also requires that everyone have certain levels of equality and equal opportunity. Without that, majoritarian votes can quickly become a dictatorship of the majority over a powerless minority.
It is true that many instances of government support for religion occur because people vote for it, but there is no provision for government-sponsored religious rituals based upon majority vote. A majority of students might in a public school might want a full mass during graduation ceremonies, a mass that people can simply not participate in if they do not wish, but would that be OK? What if the majority of students wanted a chicken ritually sacrificed during ceremonies, would it be acceptable because no one has to get their hands bloody if they don’t want? Of course not. People only feel this way about their own religious rituals, a fact which underscores their lack of respect of those who believe differently.
Taking all of this into account, it should become clear that atheists challenging government endorsement or promotion of religion aren't acting against democracy, but instead are acting as good citizens of a liberal democracy. Atheists, usually working with theists and religious believers, are acting to prevent the government from taking sides in religious disputes or disagreements. Atheists are fighting to keep the government neutral and to preserve the principle that any government of a pluralistic society must remain secular because it cannot be trusted with any authority over or competency in religious matters. Government can have enough trouble doing a good job with secular matters; it certainly shouldn't be entrusted with religious or theological matters.
Many religious theists, including many Christians, recognize that this is true. They would rather that authority over religious matters remain in the hands of individuals and their religious institutions (if they belong to any), not in the hands of elected government representatives, government bureaucrats, or judges. Other religious theists, almost all of whom are Christians, oppose this because it means a loss of privilege and status for them, their religious beliefs, and their religious institutions. This is why they lash out so strongly and even violently when their privileges are challenged. Even other Christians can come under vicious attack — atheists become little more than a scapegoat for people who fear the loss of power, privilege, and status.
Just the opposite is the case, in fact, but this claim serves to encourage anti-atheist hostility at the expense of truth and fairness. Unfortunately, it also plays upon a popular misperception about democracy in America: namely, that democracy depends exclusively upon majoritarian votes. Many believe that whatever the majority decides should be enacted in a democracy; to reject the will of the majority is anti-democratic.
To a certain extent this popular perception is accurate, but only because a liberal and free society must necessarily have the power to reject or overturn certain democratic votes. In the October/November 2005 issue of Free Inquiry, Shadia B. Drury writes: "[F]reedom and democracy belong to conflicting traditions. For example, liberalism is about the rule of the protection of individual and rights, limitations of executive and separation of church and state. By giving power to the majority, democracy threatens liberty. Liberal democracy is a fusion of two Western traditions." This is why democratic majorities cannot vote to reinstitute slavery, for example.
To a greater extent, though, this popular perception is inaccurate because it fails to take into account the fact that democracy is more than just majoritarian voting. Reinstituting slavery, for example, would mean denying the vote to slaves and that is obviously anti-democratic, even if achieved through democratic voting. The key is that democracy requires more than just majoritarian votes, it also requires that everyone have certain levels of equality and equal opportunity. Without that, majoritarian votes can quickly become a dictatorship of the majority over a powerless minority.
It is true that many instances of government support for religion occur because people vote for it, but there is no provision for government-sponsored religious rituals based upon majority vote. A majority of students might in a public school might want a full mass during graduation ceremonies, a mass that people can simply not participate in if they do not wish, but would that be OK? What if the majority of students wanted a chicken ritually sacrificed during ceremonies, would it be acceptable because no one has to get their hands bloody if they don’t want? Of course not. People only feel this way about their own religious rituals, a fact which underscores their lack of respect of those who believe differently.
Taking all of this into account, it should become clear that atheists challenging government endorsement or promotion of religion aren't acting against democracy, but instead are acting as good citizens of a liberal democracy. Atheists, usually working with theists and religious believers, are acting to prevent the government from taking sides in religious disputes or disagreements. Atheists are fighting to keep the government neutral and to preserve the principle that any government of a pluralistic society must remain secular because it cannot be trusted with any authority over or competency in religious matters. Government can have enough trouble doing a good job with secular matters; it certainly shouldn't be entrusted with religious or theological matters.
Many religious theists, including many Christians, recognize that this is true. They would rather that authority over religious matters remain in the hands of individuals and their religious institutions (if they belong to any), not in the hands of elected government representatives, government bureaucrats, or judges. Other religious theists, almost all of whom are Christians, oppose this because it means a loss of privilege and status for them, their religious beliefs, and their religious institutions. This is why they lash out so strongly and even violently when their privileges are challenged. Even other Christians can come under vicious attack — atheists become little more than a scapegoat for people who fear the loss of power, privilege, and status.
