January 20, 2009, was an historic date in the United States. It was momentous for the inauguration of the first black U.S. President, Barack Obama, an event that bookmarked the civil rights movement and ushered in new hope that the U.S. had made enormous progress in soothing long-seated racial tensions.

But Obama’s inauguration also marked another historic first – a first that too took great strides to soothe a long-seated tension. Only this tension wasn’t marked by racial lines, but rather the division between the religious and the non-religious.
The first I’m referring to was the President’s inauguration speech, in which he said:

“We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers.” It was the first time a U.S. President had acknowledged atheists and agnostics in an inauguration speech, and one of few times a politician had referenced non-theists in an inclusive, positive light. It was an astounding nod to the non-theist community – particularly when you consider that it’s a matter of political capital for U.S. politicians to reference faith and speak about their own devotion, and appearing too friendly with the non-theist community can sometimes be toxic to a politician’s career.

Yet, since his inauguration, President Obama has continued to inclusively mention non-believers in other speeches, such as at a Hispanic Prayer Breakfast. It appears that after a sordid history of being a third rail in U.S. politics, non-believers may now be getting their first seat at the political table.

However, many questions still remain at issue for non- theist Americans. Despite indications that attitudes may be starting to change, why has there been and continues to be so little acceptance of non- theists in general, and how do we change that? Why is it that the United States, which has a strong Constitutional separation of church and state, breeds such fervent religiosity? What is the state of secularism in the U.S.? These are questions Humanists must ask in order to understand how to gain acceptance of ourselves and our philosophy, both in government and in civil society.

Wariness of non-theism in the United States runs deep. In fact, it runs so deep that over half of the population wouldn’t vote for an atheist for President. Far more would vote for a Mormon, even though atheists and agnostics outnumber Mormons by a wide margin. To be exact, the number of non-theists in the U.S. is estimated to be approximately 63 million, or between 9 and 11 percent of the population. That’s compared to the number of Jewish, Mormon, Orthodox, and Muslim adherents combined, who totaled just 8 per cent. The conventional wisdom that believing in god – any god – is better than believing in no god is widely held.

Moreover, religiosity at the expense of secularism is more prevalent in public life in the United States than many other western countries. A 2006 study published in Science magazine showed that only 14 per cent of adults in the U.S. thought that evolution was “definitely true,” compared with Denmark, Sweden, and France, where over 80 per cent of adults accepted the concept of evolution. The only country surveyed that was more likely to reject evolution than the U.S. was Turkey. In addition, a 2005 Financial Times/Harris poll showed that approximately 70 per cent of Americans believe in some kind of supreme being, compared with approximately 60 per cent of Italians, 40 per cent of Germans, and a mere 30 per cent of French. Moreover, church attendance is generally higher in the United States than many Western countries, and more Americans rate faith as being an important part of their life than Western Europeans do.

These facts are hard to reconcile with the strong tradition of separation of church and state that was established in the U.S. at its founding. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ”. In plain speech, the Government is prohibited from preferring one religion to another and from preferring religion to non-religion. And although that line between religion and Government is always being tested – and some politicians are more respectful of that line than others – the legal principle of separation of church and state is generally adhered to. Thus, public schools are prohibited from indoctrinating children into faith or non- faith, employers are prohibited from discriminating against individuals for their belief or non-belief (exceptions are made for private religious groups, who are exempt from most non-discrimination laws in order to keep religion autonomous from Government), and the Government is prohibited from banning religious or non- religious speech and assembly.

Compare this with the nature of church-state relations in many Western European countries. Whereas in the U.S. the government is prohibited from entanglement with religion – particularly in the realm of direct funding – many European countries, including England, Denmark, and Finland, recognize an official state church. In others, including Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Spain, the state and church recognize common tasks. Contrary to the United States, it’s common in Western Europe for governments to fund religious organizations, teach religion in public schools, and officially prefer one religion to another. (The exception is France, whose version of church-state separation, or laïcité, recognizes non-religion over religion.) So it seems then that secularism – the state of being non-religious – depends very much upon the realm one is referring to. Secularism in government is very different from secularism in civil society. And while the United States Government – despite room for improvement – is quite secular, civil society in the U.S. is by many respects emphatically non-secular.

Why is it then that the United States, with its unique version of separation of church and state and secular government, has such a non-secular civil society? The answer is that the separation of church and state in the U.S. is actually very good for religion. Contrary to Western Europe, where the church and state are corruptively linked, creating a mostly secular civil life, the ability for individuals to choose their religion (or ethical philosophy) free from government coercion, and the ability of religious or ethical groups to run free from government intrusion in the U.S. has created a robust religious market unparalleled anywhere else in the world. And this market – even though it can create competition and animosity between religions and between religion and non-religion, and can lead politicians to eschew non-theists for fear they will alienate their larger theist constituency – is actually a very good thing for Humanists at the end of the day.

For an example, consider recent controversy in the rigidly secular France. Recently, President Sarkozy sparked outrage in the Muslim community by suggesting that the burqa – an essential aspect of many Muslim women’s faith – has no place in civil society. Of late, France is considering gradually banning the burqa from being worn in all public spaces. Many Humanists would never support such a ban because we recognize that freedom of expression – whether non-religious or religious – must be extended to everyone in a free society. You can’t gain respect for your own point of view when you’re outlawing someone else’s. Even as many Humanists disagree with what the burqa stands for, we understand that it’s wrong to outlaw the burqa just as much as it is to criminalize speech that criticizes religion. Forcing any worldview onto an unwilling populace – whether that worldview is religious or non-religious – will only ever be counterproductive.

Inherent in this notion is that the key to gaining acceptance for Humanism in any society is free speech. One of the most brilliant legacies of the Founding Fathers was to ensconce free speech within the First Amendment – the very amendment that established the separation of church and state. Indeed, the two principles should be intertwined in any free society. And even though the U.S. version of separation of church and state creates a very strident religious presence in civil life, Humanists have the ability to speak out about their ethical philosophy and persuade others that their worldview is right. In the end, it’s that freedom to persuade and educate people about Humanism that will draw the most support for it.

And as evinced by a jump in the number of people who identify themselves as having no religion, Obama’s inaugural shout-out, and the fact that the Secular Coalition for America recently met with White House Associate Director of Public Engagement Paul Monteiro – marking the first time a group has met privately with the White House to focus solely on non-theists’ issues – it seems that our ability to speak out is working: Humanism is gaining real ground.

Karen Frantz is the Communications and Policy Manager at the American Humanist Association.