Comment on this article:


(Optional. We will not publish your email address here or elsewhere.)


Maximum 5,000 characters. Character count: 0

When you submit this message, you give The Jury Expert permission to publish it on the web. As this is a professional journal, editors will publish comments that are courteous and respectful (even when in disagreement). Thanks for participating in the TJE community!

Recent Comments:

Rita Handrich comments on Jurors' Perceptions of Attorneys See the comment

Erica Anderson comments on Jurors' Perceptions of Attorneys See the comment

Marjorie Fargo comments on SJQs for White Collar Defense See the comment

Michael Brockwell comments on Packing Like a Pro See the comment

Chris O'Brien comments on Effective Voir Dire See the comment

Darla Russell comments on Jurors' Perceptions of Attorneys See the comment

Paul Luvera blogs on Effective Voir Dire See the blog post

Mitchell Thomas comments on Jurors' Perceptions of Attorneys See the comment

Brian Patterson comments on Trial Graphics on the Cheap See the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Bifurcation/Hindsight See the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Trial Graphics on the Cheap See the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Packing Like a Pro See the comment

Joshua Franklin comments on Effective Voir Dire See the comment

Annie Gough comments on Trial Graphics on the Cheap See the comment 

Matt Groebe responds to Charli Morris on Bifurcation/Hindsight See the comment

D. Montiel comments on Trial Graphics on the Cheap See the comment

Francesca Cerrato comments on Trial Graphics on the Cheap See the comment

Charli Morris comments on Bifurcation/Hindsight See the comment

Ted Brooks comments on Can the iPod Pick Your Next Jury See the comment

Sean comments on Can the iPad Pick Your Next Jury? See the comment

Frank Pray comments on How to Present Yourself in Court See the comment

Kathy Kellermann comments on Political Attack Ads (What Can We Learn?) See the comment

Joe Guastaferro comments on Do We Need Einsteins in the Jury Box? See the comment

Karen Franklin has blogged on the Psychology of Voir Dire at her blog In the News. See the blog post

Kathy Kellermann comments on Police Deception During Interrogation See the comment

Kathy Kellermann comments on Political Attack Ads (What Can We Learn?)  See the comment

Charli Morris comments on Political Attack Ads (What Can We Learn?) See the comment

Laura Dominic responds to Kathy Kellerman's comment on Gender in the Courtroom See Laura's response

Kathy Kellermann comments on Persuading with Probability See the comment

Kathy Kellermann comments on Gender in the Courtroom See the comment

Paul B. Kennedy has blogged on Gender in the Courtroom at his blog: The Defense Rests See the post

Edward Schwartz has commented on Could the iPad Pick Your Next Jury See the comment

Kathy Kellerman has commented on When Jurors Nod See the comment

Doug Keene has blogged on Working for Justice in Neshoba County at his blog: The Jury Room See the post

Phil Monte comments on SJQs for The Holy War See the comment

Dan Hull comments on Managing & Mentoring Millennials See the comment

Sean Overland comments on Out of the Shadows, Into the Jury Box See the comment

Blawg Review #283 cites Managing & Mentoring Millennials See Blawg Review #283

mikee  comments on Will It Hurt Me in Court? See the comment

Rita Handrich has blogged on Managing & Mentoring Millennials at her firm blog: The Jury Room See the post

Paul Scoptur has pointed readers of his blog (Scoptur's Law) to the new issue of The Jury Expert See the blog post

Thaddeus Hoffmeister has pointed readers of his blog (Juries) to the new issue of The Jury Expert See the blog post

Michael Drake at Strange Doctrines blog has pointed his readers to Grime and Punishment See the blog post

Roland Stark has commented on Persuading with Probability See the comment

Keith Lee has blogged on Tattoos, Tolerance, Technology and TMI at his blog: An Associate's Mind See the post

Jason Barnes has posted a link on a recent Batson ruling from the 9th Circuit See the link

The University of Texas at Austin Law School Advocacy Program recommends The Jury Expert to their law students See the Law School press release 

Karen Franklin has blogged on What We Do (& Do Not) Know About Jurors & Race See the post

Doug Keene has blogged on Emotions in the Courtroom at The Jury Room blog See the blog post

James Goulding has blogged on Tattoos, Tolerance, Technology & TMI at Mean is Out blog See the post

Doug Keene has blogged on Tattoos, Tolerance, Technology & TMI at The Jury Room blog See the blog post

Daniel Denis responds to Jason Barnes comment on Persuading with Probability See the response

Walter K. [@noblindfold] has blogged on Tattoos, Tolerance, Technology & TMI See the blog post

Jason Barnes has commented on Persuading with Probability See the comment

David Badertscher has blogged on Hate Crimes and Racial Slurs at Criminal Law Library Blog See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at idealawg blog See the blog post

Jaime and Kevin comment on East Texas Patent Trials See the comment

David Fish comments on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at idealawg blog See the blog post

Tony Duncan has pointed readers of his blog to Jurors and the Internet See the blog post

Daylight Atheism blog has posted on America Hates Atheists See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at idealawg blog See the blog post

Mark Bennett has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at Defending People blog See the blog post

'Joe Attorney' has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at Doing Justice blog See the blog post

Joe Markowitz has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Rita Handrich has pointed readers of The Jury Room blog to this issue of TJE See the blog post

John Mittelman has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Victoria Ward has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the blog post

Jason Barnes comments on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Brian Patterson comments on Biggest Bully in the Room See the comment

Todd Schlossberg comments on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

SCOTUS blog references Beneath the Robes & Behind Closed Doors See the blog post

Marjorie Fargo has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Paul Scoptur has pointed readers of his blog, Scoptur's Law to A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the post

Elie Mystal has referenced Beneath The Robes & Behind Closed Doors in Non Sequiturs at Above the Law Blog See the post

Montgomery Delaney has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Ken Broda-Bahm has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Mark Bennett has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Jessica Hoffman has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles is a Bad Idea See the comment

Thaddeus Hoffmeister has blogged on Avoiding Problems During Jury Selection in the Age of Batson at Juries Blog See the post

Ken Broda-Bahm comments on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles is a Bad Idea See the comment

Steve Schlicht comments on America Hates Atheists See the comment

Stephen G. Schwarz has cited Jurors and Technology in Trial in a post at the Faraci Lange blog See the post

David Shackelford has cited America Hates Atheists at the Shark Attack blog See the blog

Groklaw cites Practical Tools for Staying Organized in Jury Selection & Voir Dire See the post

Doug Keene has blogged on Rules Don't Apply to Me at The Jury Room blog See the post

Steven G. Pietrick has commented on From the Conference Room to the Courtroom See the comment

John Buntin has blogged on Rules Don't Apply to Me at 13th Floor blog See the post

Razib Khan has blogged on America Hates Atheists at Gene Expression blog See the post

Steven Gursten has blogged on Injured Body, Injured Mind See the blog post

Gribble the Munchkin comments on America Hates Atheists See the comment

Stuart Bechman comments on America Hates Atheists See the comment

science + religion TODAY has blogged on America Hates Atheists See the post

Hemant Mehta has blogged on America Hates Atheists at Friendly Atheist See the post

Stephanie West Allen blogs on Toying with Juror's Emotions at idealawg See the post

Marc Gray comments on America Hates Atheists See the comment

Stephanie West Allen blogs on The Rules Don't Apply to Me at idealawg See the post

Robin Hanson has cited America Hates Atheists in his blog Overcoming Bias See the post

LawyersUSAOnline has cited The Rules Don't Apply to Me See the link

Brian Patterson comments on Using Technology in Litigation See the comment

Ted Brooks comments on Using Technology in Litigation at his firm blog Court & Trial Technology See the post

'Anonymous Atheist' has commented on America Hates Atheists See the comment

Elaine Lewis comments on Goals of Witness Preparation See the comment

Charli Morris comments on "The Prep Question" See the comment

David Shafer comments on "The Prep Question" See the comment

Lee Keller King has commented on Will It Hurt Me in Court See the comment

Doug Keene has blogged at The Jury Room on Sixteen Simple Rules See the blog post

Steve Pietrick has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

Melissa Gomez has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

Adam Benforado has commented on Law on Display via Situationist Blog See the comment

John Day has blogged at Day on Torts about Jurors & the Internet See the blog post

Rita Handrich has blogged at The Jury Room on Colorism See the blog post

Philip Cave has blogged at Court-Martial Trial Practice on 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Dennis Elias has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

Paul Scoptur has pointed his blog readers to this issue of The Jury Expert See Paul's blog

Edward Schwartz has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

K_Yew has pointed his blog readers to 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Sean Overland has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

Feminist Law Profs blog wants to know where the women are. We know where

Lawyers USA has written a piece featuring Katherine James and her article on Live Communication See the article

Steven G. Pietrick has commented on Preparing for the Prep Question See the comment

David Oliver at Mass Torts: State of the Art Blog has cited 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Scott Henson of Grits for Breakfast has cited 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Julie Campanini has blogged on Out & Proud See the blog post

Grey Tesh sends readers of Palm Beach Criminal Lawyer Blog to see 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog post

Tyler Cowen sends his readers from Marginal Revolution blog to see 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See Tyler's blog

Forensic Focus Forums has begun a discussion on Law on Display See the forum posts

Book Forum has cited Don't Poke Scalia on their Omnivore page See the post

Book Forum has cited Jurors & the Internet on their Omnivore page See the post

Christina Spiesel comments on Ted Brooks' blog post regarding Law on Display See the comment

Susan Levy comments on Damages: Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the comment

Edward P. Schwartz comments on Law on Display See the comment

Karen Franklin has blogged on this issue of The Jury Expert See the blog

Sean Overland has blogged on Jurors and the Internet See the blog post

Publius comments on Enron to Broadcom See the comment

Judge John DiMotto references Jurors and the Internet on his blog See the blog

Ted Brooks has blogged on Law on Display See the blog post

Kevin Boully has blogged on 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Louisville Courier-Journal has published on article (Taser-death verdict challenged over juror's conduct) which references our Jurors & the Internet article See the Louisville Courier-Journal

Florida Bar Journal has published an article (Reining in Juror Misconduct) citing our Jurors & the Internet article See the Florida Bar Journal article

Howard Wasserman has blogged on Don't Poke Scalia at his Federal Courts blog See the blog

Ric Dexter has commented on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need See the comment

David Badertscher has blogged on Jurors & the Internet at his Criminal Law Library Blog See the blog

Phil Cave has blogged on Live Communication at his blog Court-Martial Trial Practice See the blog

Melissa M. Gomez has blogged on Jury Research for Settlement on her blog at the Legal Intelligencer See the blog

Doug Keene has blogged on this issue of The Jury Expert at his firm blog: The Jury Room See the blog

Martin G. commented on When Jurors Nod See the comment

E. Oliver commented on When Jurors Nod See the comment

Gregory Cusimano commented on Live Communication See the comment

Matt M. commented on Jurors and the Internet See the comment

W. Stuermer commented on Don't Poke Scalia See the comment

David Schwartz commented on Don't Poke Scalia See the comment

Janet commented on Don't Poke Scalia See the comment

Jason Barnes commented on When Jurors Nod See the comment

Jason Barnes commented on Jurors and the Internet See the comment

Thaddeus Hoffmeister blogged on Jurors and the Internet at his blog Juries See the blog

Adam Chandler blogged on Don't Poke Scalia at SCOTUS blog See the blog

Thaddeus Hoffmeister commented on Jurors and the Internet See the comment

Edward Schwartz has blogged on Jury Research for Settlement at the Jury Box Blog See the blog

Sean Overland has blogged on Jury Research for Settlement on his blog at Overland Consulting See the blog

T. Guthell, MD has commented on Jurors and the Internet See the comment

David Badertscher has listed our Table of Contents at his Criminal Law Library Blog See the blog

Sean Overland has blogged on Identifying Leaders See the blog

Edward Schwartz has blogged on Terror Management Theory in the Courtroom See the blog

Joseph C. Markowitz has blogged on Civil Case Mediation See the blog

Phyllis G. Pollack has blogged on Civil Case Mediation See the blog

Victoria Cooke has commented on Graphic Injury Photographs See the comment

Glenn Meyer has commented on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Paul Silver has commented on Civil Case Mediation See the comment

Wendy Saxon comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Arch Stanton comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Ted Brooks has blogged on Anthropomorphism in Technical Presentations See the blog post

Karen Franklin has blogged on Hate Crimes & Racial Slurs See the blog post

Matthew McCusker comments on Civil Case Mediation See the comment

benezra1970 comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Wendy Saxon comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Wendy Saxon comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

L.L. Stewart commented on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

benezra1970 has commented on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Phil Cave has blogged on Identifying Leaders See the blog post

Doug Keene has blogged on Affirmative Defenses in Product Liability Litigation See the blog post

Vickie Pynchon has commented on Civil Case Mediations See the comment

Cheryl Lubin has commented on Civil Case Mediations See the comment

Anne Reed has blogged on The Jury Expert's September issue See the blog post

Paul Scoptur has blogged on Civil Case Mediations See the blog post

Kevin Boully has blogged on Gender & Assault Weapons See the blog post

Edward Schwartz has blogged on Identifying Leaders See the blog post

Ken Broda-Bahm has blogged on Jury Damage Awards in Recession See the blog post

Rita Handrich has commented on Hate Crimes & Racial Slurs Read the comment

Phillip Miller has blogged about Identifying Leaders See the blog post

Charli Morris comments on Impact of Graphic Injury Photographs Read the comment

Diane Levin has done a blog post on Observations in Civil Mediation See the blog post

Cameron Reed has blogged about Narcissism in Gen Y See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has done a blog post on Observations in Civil Mediation See the blog post

Edward Schwartz comments on Will It Hurt Me in Court Read the comment

Cheryl Lubin comments on From the Conference Room to the Courtroom Read the comment

Jim Brock comments on Lights, Camera, Action! Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Lights, Camera Action! Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Jury Damage Awards in Times of Recession Read the comment

Sean Overland comments on the Book Review of The Juror Factor Read the comment

Dennis Elias comments on Jury Damage Awards in Times of Recession Read the comment

Gayle Herde comments on Using Your EAR in Voir Dire Read the comment

Bob Schiffmann comments on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need Read the comment

Alison K. Bennett comments on Using Your EAR in Voir Dire Read the comment

Ted Brooks replies to a comment on Jurors and Technology Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Jurors and Technology in Trial Read the comment

Kelley Tobin comments on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need Read the comment

Kacy Miller comments on Jurors and Technology in Trial Read the comment

Charli Morris comments on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need Read the comment

Carol Phillips comments on Gen Y & Narcissism Prevalence Read the comment

Diane Wyzga comments on Juror Stress Read the comment

Edward P. Schwartz comments on Turning Expert Witnesses Into Teachers Read the comment

Phillip Miller comments on Turning Timelines Into Plotlines Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Turning Timelines Into Plotlines Read the comment

Phillip Miller comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Ric Dexter comments on Turning Timelines Into Plotlines Read the comment

Stacy Fergurson comments on Grime & Punishment Read the comment

Jeri Kagel comments on Turning Timelines Into Plotlines Read the comment

Rita Handrich comments on Grime & Punishment Read the comment

Sean Overland responds to Jeri Kagel's comment Read the response

George Kich comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Kacy Miller responds to comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Laura Rochelois comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Sonia Chopra comments on Grime & Punishment Read the comment

Bob Kaufman comments on Injured Body, Injured Mind Read the comment

Steve Laird comments on Injured Body, Injured Mind Read the comment

Steve Laird comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Jeri Kagel comments on Anti-Gay Bias in the Courtroom Read the comment

Dave Zehner comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Sean Overland responds to Pat McEvoy's comment on Anti-Gay Bias in the Courtroom Read the comment

Brian Bornstein responds to Steven Gursten's comment on Injured Body, Injured Mind Read the comment

Jason Barnes responds to Ted Brooks' comment on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Ralph Mongeluzo comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Ted Brooks comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Diane Wyzga responds to Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Jason Barnes responds to Patrick Norha's comment on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Patrick Norha comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Douglas L. Keene comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Bruce A. Beal comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Ken Broda-Bahm comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Pat McEvoy comments on Anti-Gay Bias in the Courtroom Read the comment

Steven Gursten comments on Injured Body, Injured Mind Read the comment

Philip Monte comments on Ethical Issues in Racial Profiling Read the comment

Valerie Hans comments on the book review: The American Jury.
Read the comment
Elaine Lewis comments on The Preparation of Narcissistic Witnesses.
Read the comment

 



by Douglas L. Keene, Rita R. Handrich

Comments 12 | Rating

 

Panic over the Unknown:

America hates Atheists

 

By Douglas L. Keene and Rita R. Handrich

 

Douglas L. Keene, Ph.D. [dkeene@keenetrial.com] is a psychologist, founder of Keene Trial Consulting, Past-President of the American Society of Trial Consultants, and adjunct faculty at the University of Texas School of Law, teaching Advanced Civil Trial Advocacy. He assists law firms with trial strategy (including focus groups and mock trials) on major civil litigation and white collar criminal defense, voir dire strategy, jury selection, witness preparation, and related services. His national practice is based in Austin, Texas [http://www.keenetrial.com].

 

Rita R. Handrich, Ph.D. (rhandrich@keenetrial.com) joined Keene Trial Consulting in 2000. She is a licensed psychologist with extensive experience as a testifying expert witness. In addition to providing trial consulting services through KTC, she is Editor of The Jury Expert. Rita is a frequent contributor to "The Jury Room" --the Keene Trial Consulting blog.

 

"If 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner' was remade today, the 'shocking' guest would no longer be a highly accomplished, educated and sophisticated black man (Sidney Poitier) but a highly accomplished, educated and sophisticated atheist."1


"The prisons are probably filled with people who don't have any kind of a spiritual or religious core. So I don't have to worry about...a conservative Christian, you know, committing a crime against me."2

 

Contempt for out-groups--those members of society that are identified as "not like me"--is as old as time. But for all the awareness of bias, hate crimes, and prejudice against minorities, some get overlooked. Atheists are the most mistrusted, reviled, and disliked minority in the United States, according to numerous studies. Jews, African Americans, homosexuals, illegal immigrants, and even the much-mistrusted Muslim communities are all held in higher regard by the average American than are Atheists. The threat of spiritual alienation is more compelling than anything other than immediate injury.

 

It may be surprising that we Americans are more suspicious of atheists than we are of Muslims, but there you have it! Bias works in mysterious ways. Gad Saad's blog post last year1 (Atheists Are the Most Mistrusted Group: They Are Evil and Immoral!) cast a bright light on a 2006 study published2 (but previously largely unnoticed) by researchers from the University of Minnesota.

 

In this article, we examine today's surprisingly intense negative attitudes toward atheists, review what research tells us about "them" (atheists), and make recommendations for how you can use this information to improve your own litigation advocacy. Should you pay attention to potential triers-of-fact who espouse atheism? Let's put it this way: Can you ever afford to ignore intense personal values held almost universally by your jury?

 

The "Most Hated" Group In America

 

The American Mosaic Project at the University of Minnesota is focused on diversity in America with a particular focus on race and religion. Mosaic Project researchers asked survey questions to determine Americans' reactions to situations involving members of various out-groups (e.g. a person's feeling about one their children marrying a Jewish or Muslim or Catholic or atheist person)3. Researchers expected (in our post 9-11 reality) that 'Muslim' would be the most prejudiced category. Understandable hypothesis, but incorrect. 'Atheist' was by far the 'lightning rod' category on multiple queries and atheists were even described as "evil and immoral".

 


[Note: As we are Americans, the authors will often refer to the consensus of these major research findings in the first person possessive tense. "We" are describing "our" society, after all. At the same time, the authors would like it clearly understood that we do not personally endorse or agree with these mainstream prejudices, and are writing this paper in large part out of concern for their potential to undermine justice.]


 

These findings are surprising considering bias in America has traditionally been thought of as surrounding race and ethnicity. Clearly, acts of anti-Semitism are present, and both Muslims and Catholics experience active prejudice, but the level of passion against atheists is exceptional. Let's take a look at some survey responses to atheism from the American Mosaic Project in 20034.

 

'You want to marry a what?'

 

In a twist on common wisdom that Americans are more concerned about interracial marriages than interfaith marriages--we don't want our kids marrying an atheist. Almost half of Americans 'disapprove' of one of their own children marrying an atheist--compared to 1/3 disapproving of a Muslim partner, ¼ disapproving of an African American partner, 1/5 disapproving of an Asian American or Hispanic partner, and so on down the line.

 

Regular churchgoers, conservative Protestants, and those who report religion is important/salient in their lives are the most likely to disapprove of their children marrying atheists. While it should surprise no one that the non-religious respondents are the most accepting of atheists, even this group rejects atheists to a degree. One in ten (10%) of the non-religious don't want their child marrying an atheist. When it comes to welcoming diversity into our families, atheists are resoundingly rejected.

 


Voir Dire Tip: To avoid unspoken bias, query about atheism attitudes, especially if it has no bearing on case-specific issues. It will "out" some people, and will inhibit acting on the bias for many others. 


 

 

I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry

a member of this group

Egdell, P., Gerteis, J. and Hartman, D. (2006). Atheists as "other": Moral boundaries and cultural membership in American society. American Sociological Review71(211-234).

 

 

 

 

'Atheist or just plain un-American?'

 

In 1987, former President George H.W. Bush wondered if atheists should be thought of as 'American': "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God"5.

 

The American Mosaic Project respondents saw atheists as the most likely to see a very different 'vision of America'. Almost 40% thought atheists see a 'very different America; ¼ thought Muslims had a different vision; 1/5 thought homosexuals saw things differently; and so on. When lines are drawn, atheists (who can readily 'hide' or 'pass' by maintaining silence) are always on the outside. Our extension of tolerance does not seem to encompass non-believers. We do not see atheists as "like" us.

 

 


Possible Juror Attitudes: Atheists do not fit into the fabric of America. They do not deserve the same rights and freedoms as the rest of us. 


 

This group doesn't agree at all with my vision of American society

Egdell, P., Gerteis, J. and Hartman, D. (2006). Atheists as "other": Moral boundaries and cultural membership in American society. American Sociological Review71(211-234).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'A President without God?'

 

So why are we so afraid of atheists? It's hard to say. While attitudes toward others who are racially different or religiously different have softened over the past four decades, attitudes towards atheists (the non-religious) have not kept pace. Our willingness to vote for an atheist for President is still below 50%. Data provided by the Gallup Organization illustrates this reality. Our willingness to elect Catholic, Jewish or African Americans has increased dramatically. Not so for our willingness to elect atheists--we'd rather have homosexuals in office.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*(Gaps in available Gallup data presented in the above graph are extrapolated from historical Gallup data illustrated at Pollster.com and the American Mosaic Project publication.)

 

 

America's negative view of atheists

 

The American Mosaic Project sheds bright light on the extreme and specific biases toward atheists in America. More generally, Americans' views of atheists reflect the following:

We think they are immoral: Negative attitudes toward atheists seem to stem from a moral judgment. These negative evaluations of atheists are linked to distrust, a sense that atheists are immoral and arrogant, and a perception of a negative impact that atheists have on our society.6

 

'The new atheists' rub us the wrong way: A new group of writers/spokespersons for atheists has emerged who are described as "angry, abrasive and critical of believers"7; arrogant8; and "fundamentalists" who are as "wrong-headed and dangerous as the bible thumping Christians"9 (a conclusion consistent with the negative impressions that Americans had of atheists all along).

 

Some of us are less tolerant of atheists than others: Non-white Americans, females and those with less education tend to be more rejecting of atheists than white Americans, males and the college degreed. Residents of the South and Midwest are less accepting than those who live in either the East or West.

 

Regardless of grouping, however, acceptance of atheists ranges only between 33% and 60% of any given population group.10 There are reasons atheists refer to themselves as being targets of the new 'ism' (although we might question just how 'new' it is to dislike and distrust atheists)11.

Although the existing literature on atheists is small, it is consistent. We don't like them. They are not like us. They do not share our values, our vision of America, and we don't want them marrying into our families. While these attitudes toward atheists appear to be robust, research also tells us some important and useful things about the characteristics of atheist individuals.

 

 


Voir Dire Tip: Ask open-ended questions about how atheists would think/act differently than "us". Get jurors to discuss their assumptions about supposed differences. 


 

 

 


Illustrations of the current day stigma against atheists can be found in examples of bias in the public arena:

1) an Eagle Scout kicked out of Boy Scouts for being an atheist;

2) children at a charter school shoved and told they would go to hell by fundamentalist students over religious differences; and

3) a high school athlete dropped from her basketball team for refusing to recite the Lord’s Prayer.12


 

 

What We Know About Atheist Individuals

 

Atheists are a difficult group to study for a few reasons. Interestingly, some of the reasons they are difficult to study may also be reasons for you to strongly consider the role atheism could play in your next trial. Whether it's a witness, a client, or a juror - common characteristics of atheist individuals can impact the ways in which courtroom presentation influences jurors' decisions. In spite of the challenges, there are sound research conclusions that shed light on common factors to consider:

Atheists tend not to be 'joiners'. As a result, there are not organized groups which most of them 'join' where they can be studied, or where they can develop clear community.

 

There is no common definition of what constitutes an atheist (i.e., are atheists only those who self-report the label, those who don't attend church, those who are not convinced there is a God--and so on).13

 

They are willing to stay 'in the closet'. There is enough of a stigma associated with identifying as atheist that many atheists choose to 'pass' as believers and not 'come out of the closet' as true non-believers. For example, in recent US surveys, twice as many respondents say they 'do not believe in God' as describe themselves as atheists.14

 

They are skeptical of the non-scientifically proven: Atheists are defined by not believing in gods. What they do believe in may be natural science, human equality and individual freedom. They tend to be skeptical of supernatural phenomena or new age sorts of 'connectedness'.15 However, given that atheists are such a diverse group, these beliefs may not be shared uniformly (just as beliefs in the supernaturally are not shared equally among all believers).16

 

They are no longer a 'small' group: Atheism is no longer rare. Non-believers are the 4th largest belief group in the world (after Christianity, Islam and Hinduism)17 and the third largest belief group in the United States (behind Catholics and Baptists).18

 

The range of estimated number of atheists in the United States is wide. Estimates range from 1% to 14% of Americans. The stigma of identifying as atheist is believed to lower the actual count so numbers/percentages are generally presented at the lower end of the continuum by religious groups, at the higher end by atheist groups, and as a range by researchers.19

 

They tend not to serve in the military: Those who are 'nonreligious' do not tend to serve in the military (in comparison to their 'highly religious evangelical' counterparts) unless the sample is of college students and graduates. Once in college, the gap disappears.20

 

They do have an ethical compass: Contrary to our beliefs that atheists are immoral, researchers find that atheists actually do have a moral compass and they know right from wrong just as well as church-goers. In other words, the intuitive moral judgments about right and wrong seem to operate independently of religious affiliations.21

 

They may be smarter than us: A new 'Online First' article at the Social Psychology Quarterly website suggests that liberals and atheists are more intelligent because they tend to endorse more "novel values and preferences" than the rest of us. Satoshi Kanazawa (the author) examines both adolescent and adult intelligence and reports on the significant relationships among intellect, adult liberalism, atheism, and men's (but not women's) valuing of sexual exclusivity in relationships.

 


"Most people do trust atheists--they just don't know it...That trusted family member, friend or neighbor might very well be an atheist."22

            -August Berkshire, spokesperson for Minnesota atheists


 

Handling Atheism in the Courtroom

 

Beliefs of atheists (just like the beliefs of theists) structure world views, values, expectations of others, and sense of right and wrong. The dilemma is that since there is no atheistic non-holy scripture upon which "others" can evaluate their core beliefs, there is uncertainty. And for those who are intolerant of uncertainty, alarms start going off. While the research on atheism is instructive for understanding the ferocity of the bias against atheists, it offers little in the way of "how atheists think". Atheists, like most of the rest of us, have individual life experiences and values that inform their perspectives. While we can hypothesize that they would react negatively to religious argument/testimony, we can't even know that for sure.

 

Here is what we do know:

•If your client isn't 'out' as an atheist, it is better for you to keep it that way. There is no point in complicating his or her identity as a litigant. On the other hand, if your client has ever publicly acknowledged being an atheist, assume it's on the internet and that jurors may learn about it.

 

•We know how powerful bias is against African Americans and Muslims. Remember it's even worse for atheists. Think about atheism as another 'ism' because this is a category of people against whom we discriminate/have bias.

 

We have written numerous times about the importance of building identification between your client and the jurors. Whether it is life experiences, family, religious connections, or lifestyle, it is important to help the jurors feel that there is a bond between them and the client. Atheism will complicate the effort, if not derail it.

 

•Having said that, if it is a matter of public awareness that a litigant is an atheist and you want to inhibit it, you absolutely have to voir dire about it. The possibility exists that you will disqualify some jurors, but as importantly you are likely to inhibit anti-atheism bias among those who serve.

 

•We have automatic assumptions about atheists (they are arrogant, abrasive, immoral, and so on). You have to test this issue in pretrial research. What reduces bias? Don't go into court without knowing. An intuitive thought is that atheists and agnostics, being less bound by conventional social mores, might be relatively pro-plaintiff (civil) and pro-defense (criminal). Consider this for your case.

 

•While there is a brief measure for negative attitudes toward atheists--you don't need it! The research is clear. Americans have negative attitudes toward atheists. What you have to determine is how to minimize that bias in your specific case.

 

•Atheists are not 'joiners' and many of them do not publicly identify themselves due to stigma. Most jury questionnaires only ask about religious affiliation, and since atheism is not a religion, per se, offering atheism as a response to a religion query is gratuitous. You can fairly assume that anyone who publicly identifies him- or herself as atheist is unusually opinionated and might be too unpredictable to have on your jury.

 

We see this in pre-trial research with anyone who identifies as extreme (e.g., very liberal or very conservative). They are often not people we want on juries because we simply cannot predict which direction they will go on a particular case, and they tend to have a polarizing effect on the jury.

 

There are also some additional research findings it makes sense to consider for your specific case. There are some specific tactics we recommend based on these findings and based on the persuasion literature in general.

 

 

Research Finding

What to do

Why to do it

We don’t like atheists and we don’t trust atheists

Show the jury how the atheist is ‘like them’ through volunteerism, values, family, et cetera. Make the atheist trustworthy and likable and most of all—moral.23

We like people who are ‘like us’. Make ‘your’ atheist the exception to the irrational belief. See our blog category on witness preparation for ideas on this one.24

Religious intensity remains best predictor of politics25

See if religiosity is significant in pretrial research. If yes, consider how your case plays to what we now consider “Democrat/Republican values”.

The judge will often not allow queries about politics. You can make a request for religious affiliation/commitment info. Use that to help you assess juror risk for your case.

Raise the atheist (bias awareness) flag

Talk to the jury about how atheism is a ‘hot button’ for Americans and the importance of deliberating on facts not feelings or bias.

We know that talking about bias reduces the likelihood of biased decisions being made26. Raise the flag and reduce the likelihood of unconscious bias.

Conservative fundamentalists are most punitive27

Assess fundamentalism. Check religious affiliation or identity.

Jurors with belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible are more punitive. Jurors who claim religious affiliation are more punitive than atheists/agnostics.

Religious attendance and generosity28

Religious attendance is linked to generosity worldwide.

Consider (and explore in pretrial research) if this might be linked to damage awards.

Victimless crime?

Religious affiliation and higher religiosityà greater condemnation in victimless crimes29

This is a shortcut to identifying jurors predisposed to punish your client.

 

 

Summary

 

Atheists are unique and individual (just like all of us) and we have to attend to the attitudes, beliefs and life experiences that all of us (even atheists) bring to the table as jurors. Conversely, jurors need to be reminded, if they know they are judging an atheist, that they are human, American, and as deserving of thoughtful consideration as we all are. Do you want atheists on your particular jury? It depends. As we mentioned earlier, you probably don't want a militant atheist--like most militants they are likely too unpredictable and a potentially polarizing force in the deliberation room. (We have seen occasions where juries--and even focus groups--have begun their deliberations with a group prayer. Many atheists (and others) would be very uncomfortable about this, of course, and resistance might have a strong impact on the deliberative process. Of course, if you want a contentious deliberation or a hung jury you may choose to inject a militant atheist, but we aren't getting into that for this article.)

 

Most important, maintain an awareness of the intense bias atheism arouses in most Americans, and remember that all bias stems from beliefs, and the trigger is not always a characteristic visible to the eye.

 

Endnotes

 

1. Saad, Gad (2009). Atheists Are the Most Mistrusted Group: They Are Evil and Immoral! Homo Consumericus blog: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/200908/atheists-are-the-most-mistrusted-group-they-are-evil-and-immoral.

 

2. Egdell, P., Gerteis, J. and Hartman, D. (2006). Atheists as "other": Moral boundaries and cultural membership in American society. American Sociological Review, 71(211-234). Available as pdf download at: http://www.soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/files/atheist%20as%20the%20other.pdf.

3. The American Mosaic Project: http://www.soc.umn.edu/research/amp.html.

 

4. Egdell, P., Gerteis, J. and Hartman, D. (2006). Atheists as "other": Moral boundaries and cultural membership in American society. American Sociological Review, 71(211-234). Available as pdf download at: http://www.soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/files/atheist%20as%20the%20other.pdf

 

5. Hutson, M. (2009). One Nation, Without God. Psychology Today, September/October, 2009. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200909/politics-one-nation-without-god.

 

6. Edwards, J. and Abraham, N. (2010). Bonding of attitudes toward atheists to religious and secular ideologies. Poster presented at Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, January 2010, San Antonio, TX. http://www.spspmeeting.org/poster_detail.php?ID=321

 

7. The new intolerance: Fear-mongering among elite atheists is not a pretty sight. Christianity Today, February, 2007. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/17.24.html

 

8. Slack, G. (2005). The atheist. Salon.com: April. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/index.html

 

9. Coon, C. (2008). Book Review: I don't believe in atheists. Humanist.org: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-11-24-college-atheists_N.htm

 

10. Egdell, P., Gerteis, J. and Hartman, D. (2006). Atheists as "other": Moral boundaries and cultural membership in American society. American Sociological Review, 71(211-234). Available as pdf download at: http://www.soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/files/atheist%20as%20the%20other.pdf

 

11. Underhill, W. (2008). Going Godless: What does it mean to be atheist in a culture of believers? Nexus, (May/June). http://www.nexuspub.com/articles/2008/may_june08/feature_mj2008_atheism.htm

 

12. Underhill, W. (2008). Going Godless: What does it mean to be atheist in a culture of believers? Nexus, (May/June). http://www.nexuspub.com/articles/2008/may_june08/feature_mj2008_atheism.htm

 

13. Bullivant, S. (2008). Research Note: Sociology and the Study of Atheism. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 23(3), 363-368. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/10835777-4616128/content~db=all~content=a903332698

 

14. Cheyne, J.A. (2009). Atheism rising: The connection between intelligence, science and the decline of belief. Skeptic, 15(2), 33-37. http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/archives/vol15n02.html

 

15. Underhill, W. (2008). Going Godless: What does it mean to be atheist in a culture of believers? Nexus, (May/June). http://www.nexuspub.com/articles/2008/may_june08/feature_mj2008_atheism.htm

 

16. Atheism. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

17. Cheyne, J.A. (2009). Atheism rising: The connection between intelligence, science and the decline of belief. Skeptic, 15(2), 33-37. http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/archives/vol15n02.html

 

18. Gallup Organization (2009). This Christmas, 78% of Americans Identify as Christian. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124793/This-Christmas-78-Americans-Identify-Christian.aspx

 

19. Egdell, P., Gerteis, J. and Hartman, D. (2006). Atheists as "other": Moral boundaries and cultural membership in American society. American Sociological Review, 71(211-234). Available as pdf download at: http://www.soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/files/atheist%20as%20the%20other.pdf

 

20.Burdette, A., Wang, V., Elder, G., Hill, T. and Benson, J. (2009). Serving God and Country? Religious involvement and military service among young adult men. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48(4), 794-804. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jssr/2009/00000048/00000004/art00012

 

21. Atheists 'just as ethical as churchgoers'. Telegraph.co.uk: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7189188/Atheists-just-as-ethical-as-churchgoers.html

 

22. Miller, P. (2006) U of M study finds atheists are least trusted. Minnesota Star Tribune: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/Strib%20Atheist%20Faith%20and%20Values.html

 

23. So help me God. Keene Trial Consulting blog post on atheism. http://keenetrial.com/blog/2009/08/22/so-help-me-god/

 

24. Witness Preparation tips. Keene Trial Consulting collected blog posts. http://keenetrial.com/blog/category/witness-preparation/

 

25. Gallup Organization (December 2009). Religious intensity remains powerful predictor of politics. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124649/Religious-Intensity-Remains-Powerful-Predictor-Politics.aspx

 

26. Juries and Racism: A Failure of Justice. Download at our website with free registration: http://www.keenetrial.com/articles.html

 

27. Millares, J. (2009). Religious roots of punitive attitudes. Master's thesis. University of Texas at Arlington. ISBN: 9781109313598.

 

28. Gallup Organization (2009). Religious attendance relates to generosity worldwide. http://www.gallup.com/poll/122807/Religious-Attendance-Relates-Generosity-Worldwide.aspx

 

29. Shame and punishment: An international comparative study on the effects of religious affiliation and religiosity on attitudes to offending. Download from SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1436943

 

 

Citation for this article: The Jury Expert, 2010, 22(2), 50-60.  


Full Issue   Full Article   Send to a Friend   Rate this article:


Atilla wrote:
Dec-15-2010
Been an Atheist since I was old enough to know that religion existed. Grew up in the West with Mormons, fundamentalists, Catholics, you name it. One of my best friends went on to Biola U. I had Mormon teachers write me security clearance letters. They all knew I was a non-believer and it did not matter. I find more Atheists today and much less religious tolerance also. At least that is what the media seems to say.

Your post also points up something else. the jury system is unfair ...[More]

Daylight Atheism Blog wrote:
Jun-01-2010
Daylight Atheism blog has done a post on this article: Daylight Atheism's blog post

Steve Schlicht wrote:
May-16-2010
Dr. Keene and Dr. Handrich,

As a husband who just celebrated a wonderful 20th anniversary of marriage to my wife Terresa, father of three great children, Ryan, Erin and Connor, a non-religious humanist, atheist and 19 year veteran police officer, I truly appreciate the comprehensive, respectful and articulate approach to the issue of atheism and the courts.

I am a registered voter and, while participating in the jury process over the years, I have yet to sit on either a crimina ...[More]

David Shackelford wrote:
Apr-21-2010
David Shackelford has cited this article in his blog Shark Attack: David's blog

Razib Khan wrote:
Mar-25-2010
Razib Khan has done a blog post on this article at Gene Expression: Razib's blog post

Gribblethemunchkin wrote:
Mar-23-2010
Interesting article. A couple of thoughts.
1) Us athiests don't like the term militant. When applied to thiests it means people who blow up planes and shoot abortion doctors. When applied to athiests it seems to apply to people who merely argue. Use strident if you must, but militant has a violent connotation that is unfounded.
2) You mention extreme positions but this must surely be region. To identify oneself as an atheist in mudville, Missisippi requires a good deal more self confi ...[More]

Stuart Bechman wrote:
Mar-22-2010
The article seems accurate enough and draws from the referential sources that we would have recommended you to read. Your recommendations for attorneys also seemed reasonable - and somewhat enlightening for us, we were not aware of the kind of pre-trial strategizing that attorneys consider in selecting a jury. (We don't have any attorneys on retainer or volunteering for our organization.)

I very much appreciated your comment about what atheists are likely to value: "What they do belie ...[More]

science + religion TODAY wrote:
Mar-22-2010
science + religion TODAY has done a blog post on this article: science + religion TODAY's blog post

Hemant Mehta wrote:
Mar-22-2010
Hemant Mehta has done a blog post on this article: Hemant's blog post

Marc Gray wrote:
Mar-21-2010
Brilliantly presented data.

Thank you ever so much.

Robin Hanson wrote:
Mar-21-2010
Robin Hanson of Overcoming Bias blog has cited this article: Robin's blog post

Anonymous Atheist wrote:
Mar-16-2010
Editor's Note: This was sent in anonymously due to the concerns listed below (and reflected in our article). The author gave permission to post it sans identity. I appreciate it and value the perspective. RH

Rita,

I just finished reading your article on atheism. You and Doug did an excellent job. I'm responding privately because I am one of the reviled atheists. I wanted to reply but, as you've so thoroughly explored, am fearful of negative repercussions. After all, some of my ...[More]

Comment on this article:


(Optional. We will not publish your email address here or elsewhere.)


Maximum 5,000 characters. Character count: 0

When you submit this message, you give The Jury Expert permission to publish it on the web. As this is a professional journal, editors will publish comments that are courteous and respectful (even when in disagreement). Thanks for participating in the TJE community!


Publication Information

The Jury Expert is now on Twitter (@thejuryexpert)! Follow us for daily news relevant to improving litigation advocacy, understanding jury behavior, resources that aid your practice, and sometimes, stuff that's just plain fun.
http://www.twitter.com/thejuryexpert

The Jury Expert [ISSN: 1943-2208] is published bimonthly by the:
American Society of Trial Consultants
1941 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093
Phone: (410) 560-7949
Fax: (410) 560-2563
http://www.astcweb.org/

Editors of The Jury Expert
Rita R. Handrich, PhD — Editor

Kevin R. Boully, PhD — Associate Editor
 

The Jury Expert logo was designed in 2008 by:
Vince Plunkett of Persuasium Consulting

The publisher of The Jury Expert is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. The accuracy of the content of articles included in The Jury Expert is the sole responsibility of the authors, not of the publication. The publisher makes no warranty regarding the accuracy, integrity, or continued validity of the facts, allegations or legal authorities contained in any public record documents provided herein. Authors retain copyright of their written work. Author supplied graphics which illustrate technology or design ideas are considered the intellectual property of those authors. The Jury Expert itself is copyrighted by the American Society of Trial Consultants (ASTC).