A few months ago, Bill Maher made a claim that I regularly hear from other atheists:

“[Atheists are] out there, they’re thinking it, they’re just afraid to say it. But that’s changing,” he said. “It’ll be the new gay marriage.”

He’s certainly not the first person to have made the comparison. Earlier this year Todd Stiefel, a prominent atheist activist and generous philanthropist, took the analogy a step further when speaking with CNN:

“I consider myself working on the next civil equality movement, just like women’s rights, LGBT rights and African-American Civil Rights.”

Austin Cline claims on About.com’s atheism section that “atheists [are] hated more than gays,” and bestselling author Richard Dawkins has frequently compared the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) rights movement to the atheist movement—drawing heavily from the LGBTQ rights movement for his “Out Campaign,” which encourages atheists to “come out.” And these are just a few examples in a long line of well-intentioned atheist activists and organizations—who generally consider themselves LGBTQ allies—comparing the LGBTQ rights movement to the atheist movement.

Bill Maher

Bill Maher photo courtesy Angela George via Wikimedia Commons


This image is available for Web publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

There are things about this comparison that, on the surface, make sense: atheists and LGBTQs are marginalized communities that deviate from normative ideas about how people should live, that often share an experience of needing to reveal our identities to others (sometimes with terrible consequences), and that experience social stigma.

I understand the desire to compare our communities, and I think a useful partial analogy can be drawn for the sake of the atheist movement looking to and learning from the LGBTQ community. However, the extent of the comparison made by a number of atheists frustrates me. There is often a problematically broad equation of the challenges our communities face—that atheism is “the new gay marriage,” or “the next civil equality movement,” or other such claims—and I strongly object to that. Here’s why.

Hate crimes

Anti-atheist bias does exist, of course—particularly in other parts of the world—and it should be strongly condemned and combated. The prevalence of violence in the U.S. motivated by an anti-atheist bias, however, is more than eclipsed by violence motivated by heterosexism.

In 2012 the FBI reported that the largest percentage of reported hate crimes were those motivated by racial bias. After that, the next largest percentages of hate crimes were motivated by bias against sexual orientation and against religion (primarily against Jews and Muslims). But of the reported hate crimes motivated by bias against religious belief (18.7% of all hate crimes), only 0.9% stemmed from an anti-atheist/agnostic bias. In other words, the magnitude of violence against atheists and agnostics does not begin to compare to what many other communities experience.

Personally speaking, I rarely fear for my safety as an atheist in the U.S., but I frequently do as a queer person. I have been physically assaulted for being queer, and many of my Muslim and Jewish friends have also been the victims of hate crimes. This is not to say that anti-atheist hate crimes do not happen, but statistically they are extremely less common. Like other atheist activists and writers, I have received anti-atheist death threats—but there is a significant difference between threats and completed acts of violence, and the numbers aren’t at all equivalent. So when an atheist like Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins—powerful, influential, financially comfortable, heterosexual white men—implicitly or explicitly attempts to parallel his experience of life to those of people in other marginalized communities, it’s difficult not to cringe.

And that’s far from the only flaw in the equation of LGBTQ experience with atheist experience.

“Atheist rights”?

I’m passionate about challenging anti-atheist bias and actively do so in my day-to-day work, but the legal challenges atheists and queer people face are entirely different. It’s true that there are several states with laws saying that an atheist cannot hold public office—there isn’t much precedent for these laws being enforced, but that doesn’t mean that their existence isn’t a clear sign of bias or a violation of the separation of church and state. But it’s difficult to sympathize with the idea that issues like “In God We Trust” on our money or “One nation under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance are at all comparable to the fact that in many parts of the U.S. LGBTQ Americans—transgender Americans in particular—are not afforded essential protections under the law such as non-discrimination in employment or housing.

This distinction isn’t meant to minimize the sense of alienation that legally reinforced religious privilege or religious homogeny can create for nontheists, particularly for young nontheists who may feel like the only kids who do not believe in any gods when their peers recite the Pledge. These are important issues of inclusion and of the separation of church and state—issues that impact other non-Christian religious minorities as well—and they have my full support. But they are substantively different from the legal barriers many queer people still face. For the most part, few atheists suffer from a lack of legal protections in the U.S.

Thus, it seems untenable to claim that the American atheist movement is a “rights” movement in the same sense as the LGBTQ rights movement. Instead, the primary challenge atheists face is one of social stigma and of being excluded. The LGBTQ community faces this issue, too—but the equation of atheists and LGBTQs fails in this regard as well.

Disgust vs. distrust

I anticipate that some atheists might respond to this article by saying that the comparison between LGBTQ rights and the atheist movement is apt because the root of discrimination or stigma against both atheists and LGBTQ people grows out of a shared source: institutional religion. But while the roots of anti-LGBTQ and anti-atheist attitudes are far too complex to unpack in this piece, it is clear that religion alone is not responsible.

A myriad of religious and political institutions have perpetuated and sustained anti-LGBTQ attitudes throughout history, and these attitudes are still frequently expressed and enforced through religion—but calling religion the source would be misguided. (Besides: if atheists consider religion to be human-created, then it follows that anti-gay attitudes come from humans who sometimes express them through religion.) Instead of originating from religion, studies suggest that negative attitudes toward gay people are influenced by intuitive, moral disapproval linked to the emotion of disgust. An important series of studies from Paul Bloom and Joshua Knobe at Yale University, David A. Pizarro at Cornell University, and Yoel Inbar at Tilburg University suggest a strong link between disgust and negative attitudes toward homosexuality. Because of this link, anti-gay attitudes are frequently articulated through the rhetoric of disgust or dehumanization—“homosexual activity just isn’t natural” or “homosexuality is an illness” being two common examples. Sometimes this rhetoric is religious, but it seems to reflect an emotional source that’s ultimately not.

Anti-atheist sentiment, on the other hand, appears to be most strongly linked to distrust rather than disgust. In a set of studies from the University of British Columbia, Will Gervais and his colleagues found that atheists are highly distrusted. Trust is important when it comes to maintaining positive feelings toward a group, and this may explain why, for example, a 2013 study by the Public Religion Research Institute found that Americans think that atheists are changing this country for the worse more than any other group.

To equate the two, however, is a stretch. Disgust is a very dehumanizing, visceral, and moralized emotion, whereas distrust is not—it’s the difference between denying someone’s humanity and simply avoiding them. This is perhaps why you see serious and widespread anti-gay prejudice in the U.S., but not such violent and frequent manifestations of anti-atheist prejudice. Thus, in addition to facing different legal challenges, the social stigma atheists face seems rooted in a different emotion and expresses itself differently.

Intersecting oppressions

As a queer atheist and as an activist, I understand the desire to connect the marginalization of atheists and LGBTQ people. In fact, I’ve done so myself. It’s tempting because such a connection can help suggest that people should reconsider a prejudice in light of its parallel to another. But appealing to intersectionality as a way of suggesting that marginalized groups’ experience of oppression is the same is shallow at best and erasure at worst. Rather than implying that the experiences of marginalized groups are the same, intersectionality is a way of recognizing that our struggles are systemically connected.

I feel the same kind of frustration over “atheism is the new gay” as I do when members of the LGBTQ community say that the fight for LGBTQ rights is the new civil rights movement. Such statements imply that the fight against racism is somehow over (I’m looking at you, recent GOP tweet), or that (white) queer people experience the same kinds or levels of discrimination that people of color do. That kind of relativism helps no one. Statements like “atheism is the new gay” are generally unhelpful for the same reason.

But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a parallel to make.

Though our communities face different (but connected) challenges originating from different (but connected) sources, we share an “outsider” status. Our identities deviate from the norm, and as “others” we must work to challenge the norm.

Challenging the norm, building relationships

In this vein, a number of atheists have pointed to the gay rights movement and said that in order to move the cultural needle as the gay rights movement has, the atheist movement needs both conciliatory atheists and aggressive ones (or “diplomats and firebrands”). But here again there is an important difference: the “confrontationalists” of the gay rights movement have worked to fight against heterosexism and legally supported discrimination and bias against queer people, but as a whole they haven’t worked to eliminate heterosexuality. Many vocal atheist activists—perhaps even the majority—name the elimination of religion as a primary goal. That is a very different fight than working toward freedom of—and freedom from—religion, or for greater societal acceptance for nontheists. In fact, the explicitly stated goal of ending religion may make the work of attaining allies—which has been crucial to the advancement of societal acceptance for LGBTQ people—much more difficult, if not impossible.

Unfamiliarity and outsider status is a shared challenge for atheists and LGBTQ people. In this regard a parallel is actually quite helpful, as atheists can benefit from studying how other marginalized communities have addressed this challenge. The Pew Research Center found that of the 14 percent of Americans who shifted from opposing to supporting same-sex marriage—a historic, monumental shift over such an incredibly short period of time—the top reason given was having “friends, family, acquaintances who are gay/lesbian.” Studies have shown that positive attitudes towards LGBTQ people are correlated with socialization. So while education is important, having a relationship with someone of a different identity seems to be the key to transformation.

This can of course apply to nontheists as well. The fewer relationships we have with people of faith, and the more often our activism is defined in the negative and focused on what separates us from others, the worse we will be perceived. But if atheists focus on building relationships with religious believers, much like the LGBTQ community has—while also vocally sharing our atheistic worldview in the affirmative—I suspect we will make major progress in combating anti-atheist bias based in distrust.

Toward a better world

Rather than co-opting another community’s narrative, let us see ours as a distinct part of the larger human story—the greater human quest for justice and progress. As the late agnostic astronomer and author Carl Sagan said in Cosmos: “Human history can be viewed as a slowly dawning awareness that we are members of a larger group.” Relationships across lines of difference can help usher in this awareness. Or, as Sagan continued in Cosmos: “Groups of people from divergent ethnic and cultural backgrounds working in some sense together [is] surely a humanizing and character building experience. If we are to survive, our loyalties must be broadened further, to include the whole human community, the entire planet Earth.”

As we move ever closer to this recognition of our shared humanity, we must also recognize that our communities face unique challenges. Until Sagan’s vision of a united human community is realized, different communities will continue to face particular challenges rooted in our distinct histories. While we can learn from other movements like the LGBTQ rights movement, atheists will have to carve out our own particular path to justice. As we broaden our loyalties, let us avoid broadly equating our experiences.

We are not the “new gay,” or the new anything else. We are our own movement, and it would serve us well to remember that whenever we are tempted to broadly equate our experiences to those of other groups. While that may not be as pithy or as catchy as saying “atheism is the new gay,” it will bring us one step closer to a world undivided.

Please note: The views presented in this column reflect those of the author, and not necessarily his employers or any organizations or individuals he is affiliated with.

22 Comments

  1. I think there is a flaw in the logic used to make this article. It is easier to hide being an atheist than it is to hide being gay. If that wasn’t the case the christofascists would be able to show their intoralance of both communities equally.

    • Goldstein Squad Member

      And if atheists had political control they would be persecuting believers just like they have every time they had the power to do so.

      Etc. Etc. Etc.

      What else is new?

      Wha

  2. First, you ignore all of the gay atheists that do make the connection. Here is a post by a gay, atheist, ex-clergy with a PhD in Biblical Studies: http://rutgershumanist.org/atheist-gay-double-jeopardy-or-opportunity/#more-1683. Are they just “co-opting another community’s narrative” too?

    I don’t see how any of the comments you cite are saying that everything between the two communities is exactly the same or that they are they same by degree in every single category. Who cares. Like the article I cite, people are trying to build bridges between marginalized communities instead of burning them. I’d rather focus on the commonalities and build connections than the differences so we can go our separate ways.

    Second, You focus on physical violence and ignore other measures of prejudice. For instance in Pew’s long ongoing studying currently 30% of Americans would not vote for an otherwise qualified Gay candidate while 43% – almost 50% more – wouldn’t vote for an Atheist one. The article I cite discusses how in another way atheists have it worse than gays.

    Who cares if you’ve never been physically beaten up over being an atheist? Is that such a stark difference to you? It’s different in kind, yes, but not different in degree when you get disowned by your family for not believing in God or lose a job app because they find out you worked as a counselor at Camp Quest. We should bond over our lost families and jobs, than over who gets into more fights.

    • Also, there is a huge rights component for atheism, if not to the degree you want in the US. When I lived in Indonesia a few years ago, there were only 5 recognized religions and Humanism/atheism isn’t on the list. Even when I registered my phone I had to put down Christian. But this is only to tip of the iceberg to those that are being jailed on Blasphemy charges; http://www.centerforinquiry.net/cfe/page/about/

      Maybe the Atheist Civil Rights Movement is global instead of local?

  3. Queer atheist here. Atheist rights aren’t “the next gay rights” for the simple reason that it’s not an either/or thing. I don’t get up one day and think “today I’m going to fight for my right to housing and employment and education and health care as a queer person” and then the next get up and think “i did queer rights yesterday so today i’m going to fight for my rights as an atheist”. I don’t get to replace one struggle for the next, they both are one within me.

  4. Stephen Minhinnick

    Atheism and LGBT rights are intertwined. Do you think that anti-gay prejudice would be so strong (or even exist) without being driven by religion? And there is no other group outside the LGBT movement that is so supportive of it as atheists. I would say that is because our opponents are the same people.

  5. Stephen Goeman

    Very thankful for this crucial article. As Chris says, while the LGBT and atheist movement share many facial similarities, the comparison is ultimately harmful. I think the number of atheists who see the inability for atheists to hold public office and the prevalence of violence perpetuated against queer folks as equatable is deeply troubling (if only for the morally obvious fact that violence is obviously far more serious than not being liked). I’m grateful we have Chris working in both the LGBT and the atheist movements to thoughtfully tackle these nuanced concerns and keep us in check. I want to be a good ally to my LGBT neighbors, and claiming the trauma of the queer identity because I’ll never get to be president isn’t exactly a thing for a good ally to do. So excited for the next post in this column!

  6. I am truly sorry to all LGBTQ folk who have experienced persecution at the hands of Bible or Quran or Gita toting fundamentalist haters. Truly sorry. But please also remember that for as long as there have been LGBTQ rights movements in the US, religious voices have been part of that. Maybe a small part at first with only a few gay clergy- Episcopal, Catholic, Protestant- speaking out.

    But that support has grown and evolved, and LGBT rights would not enjoy the support it does today without a SIGNIFICANT number of religious folks –including clergy like myself — who have come to believe that Jesus’ words “love your neighbor” includes the support of full human rights and dignity for LGBTQ folks. So please don’t commit the prejudiced stereotype that all religious folks are monolithic on anything, including stances toward LGBTQ folk (or humanists for that matter).

    I also understand that atheists and humanists feel persecuted. And I think loving my neighbor also means my atheist neighbor. But I also find it infuriating to argue with fundamentalists of any stripe or ideology, from Fundamentalist Christians to Dawkins followers.

    There is a type of worldview that neurotically needs to be right about everything, and many things can be at the center of that worldview. For the Fundamentalist Christian, their rather small and parochial god is at the center. And all people everywhere for all time who have thought differently are damned. For the Dawkins brand atheist, their vitriolic anti-god is at the center. And all people everywhere for all time who have thought differently are irrational sub-humans.

    So, if you are an Atheist or a Christian of a fundamentalist stripe with a martyr complex, perhaps the first step to feeling less persecuted is to do some therapy to discover how much you may be mis-perceiving the world, and how much you may be inviting negative feelings from others by the way you treat them.

    I would encourage everyone, including myself, to reject stereotypes of “the other” as some type of monolithic whole that always does this and always thinks that. I would ask that we all hold our explanations of the universe with a bit of humility, knowing that we are probably not wholly right and everyone else who disagrees if probably not wholly wrong.

    And no, it is not a logical contradiction to say “I’m claiming to be absolutely right in saying no one can be absolutely right”. Rather, in a universe of infinite potentiality, it is logical to say that any finite interpretation of the universe, held by a finite interpreter, is going to be by definition finite. And thus by definition also capable of being modified and corrected as one takes more of the universe’s infinite potential into its data set.

    And thus, there is the possibility that no matter how large the Theist has drawn their “god” it may not actually describe “God”. And likewise for the Atheist, there is the possibility that no matter how many “gods” they have rejected, they have not actually rejected “God”. The Buddha– who was certainly no theist or atheist in an ordinary sense– told us not to confuse the moon with the fingers we use to point to the moon. Perhaps this 2500 year old nugget of wisdom would help dialogue today.

  7. James Barkeep

    I’ve known dozens of people who refer to their religion as “Catholic” or “Baptist” but have never once attended church, not even as a child. Perhaps it’s to have an identity or to avoid the hateful stares that one gets from Bible Belt conservatives who equate non believers with child molestors and devil worshipers? I don’t really know and I never asked but certainly found it beyond bizarre when all they knew about Jesus as “he was born on Christmas and died on Easter”. Oddly enough, I was a devout Christian until heavily researching it this past year and now perceive it as mass brainwashing.

  8. Samuel Johnston

    It has been the theists who have politicized religion, not the non believers. A
    ‘community’ of non theists is no community, because it represents no point of view or condition, it is a mere negative. I have met with groups of so called atheists who strike me as mere negative Christians. Having struggled to fee myself from an intellectual prison where I was told what to think and how to judge, I have no desire to have anyone else speak for me.

  9. Linda LaScola

    When I hear someone say “Atheism is the new ___” I don’t take it to mean atheism is just like ___ , or that atheism supplants ____, but that these other movements have something in common with atheism and that their existence is making acceptance of atheism a lot easier.

  10. What is the point of trivializing the atheist movement compared to the LGBT movement? Are we trying to rank groups from experiencing the most discrimination to the least? To interpret Bill Maher’s quote as describing the atheist movement akin to LGBT discrimination is far fetched conjecture. Bill Maher is not claiming that the struggle against violence for the LGBT movement is analogous to the Atheist one. Perhaps he wants to emulate the effectiveness of the LGBT movement at changing policy and social acceptance. Let’s not forget the amount of elected politicians who are atheist. He is certainly trying to encourage more non religious people to become more active in the movement. His comment did not in any way shape or form mean to be interpreted as a slight against LGBT violence.

  11. No, they aren’t the same. But at the same time the goals run fairly parallel. Atheists/agnostic activsts want a secular government that doesn’t favor one religion over another, and many in the LGBT community want a government that doesn’t disfavor them over certain religious beliefs that are used to justify their discrimination.

  12. Atheists DO face discrimination in housing and employment. If you do not believe me, try stating you are an atheist in the south on your housing or employment application. You have to hide this fact in the south. That IS a fact.

  13. “The prevalence of violence in the U.S. motivated by an anti-atheist bias, however, is more than eclipsed by violence motivated by heterosexism.” So only the U.S. counts? What about all the places in the rest of the world where violence against both groups happens? How are thousands of death threats against atheist bloggers less important than other kinds of abuse? Violence is violence, whether it’s physical or emotional. Also, you fail to notice that the first people to draw the connection between movements were LGBTQ people. Greta Christina has been talking about this for years. And why is disgust somehow worse than fear? Both cause dehumanization and damage. As others have noted, it’s neither possible nor desirable to say that one group or the other is more persecuted given all the possible contextual differences. The point of connecting these two movements is to recognize the detrimental effects of having to hide, and the subtle ways in which not having the same freedoms as others causes pain and suffering for all. I get the point you are trying to make, but making value judgments about what’s worse is disrespectful to everyone. As a bisexual atheist, I am equally afraid to reveal either identity, for different but equally disturbing reasons. There are places in the world where I could be killed or imprisoned for being either.

  14. I’m a straight atheist. I’ve thought this for a while. So easy to stay in the closet as an atheist, and you’re right, it’s not the same level. You’re right in the difference between disgust and distrust and where that leads, and I’m shocked that this isn’t being spoken of more elsewhere. As a white atheist straight person, I’m immensely privileged and find it shocking that people want to compare themselves to queer people. I’m not under any stress to come out. In fact, I would be willing to bet that my mother and brother are both atheists if you pressed them, but I don’t know if they are or not and they don’t know I am. That’s in my own family! I realize some families aren’t like that, and some people push harder, but it’s just not the same at all.

  1. […] You often hear comparisons between the atheist movement and the LGBT movement — the recent increases in societal acceptance, kids getting bullied over their identities, the importance of having “firebrands” and “diplomats,” the whole “coming out” thing — but Chris Stedman points out where the analogy breaks down. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.