Anti-atheist bias is America’s one socially accepted prejudice

Evidence

There are several reasons to doubt this. For one thing, the problem with survey research of this type is not inflated social rejection, but quite the opposite. Respondents, concerned about appearing bigoted, may exaggerate their acceptance of marginalized groups. But if anything, this should lead to high levels of acceptance of atheists, and therefore would not explain why atheists trail almost any other group in social acceptance surveys. Perhaps believers, who may avoid expressing negative attitudes toward other ethnic or racial outgroups, have less concern when it comes to atheists. Anti-atheist prejudice, unlike prejudice against racial or religious minorities, could be a socially accepted prejudice in America. But that would push the question further back—why would this prejudice be socially acceptable? Moreover, these polls predict voting behavior with a reasonably high degree of accuracy. Voters in the United States have never elected an openly atheist president. Judging from the rarity of self-declared atheists holding political office in America, the polls might, if anything, underestimate how widespread the rejection of atheists is. — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 232

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s core mechanism: society reads belief in God as a commitment signal and atheism as absence of the omniscient watcher — so rejecting atheists is functionally rational under the Big God logic even in a secular state.
• QUESTION: Why exactly is anti-atheist prejudice socially acceptable when racial and religious prejudice are not? Norenzayan defers this question — the reader’s analytical frame (atheists fail the costly-signal test, so distrust is not seen as bigotry) could supply the answer.