By Julia Gardiner

Atheist: it’s a loaded term. Some proudly adopt it as a scarlet letter reclaimed from the Religious Right, but for many it remains a taboo one hesitates to utter too loudly in public. In the United States, 78.4 percent of the population identifies as Christian, compared to the 1.6 percent who identify as atheists, according to the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life, a non-partisan, non-advocacy research organization. George Docherty, a former Washington pastor who delivered the sermon that led to the addition of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, articulated the standard assumption of personal religiosity and the related aversion to godlessness that still exists in America today. “An atheistic American is a contradiction in terms,” Docherty preached, adding that anyone who is not a Christian “fall[s] short of the American ideal of life.”

In such a hostile, untrusting atmosphere, the best way to further the atheistic point of view in the religious mainstream may be to avoid labeling it as such.

At the Atheist Alliance conference in Washington, D.C., in September, 2007, Sam Harris, a so-called “new atheist” and author of “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation,” advocated the abolition of labels altogether.

“We should not call ourselves ‘atheists.’ We should not call ourselves anything,” Harris said, “We should go under the radar for the rest of our lives, and while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.”

A.J. Durwin, a 20-year-old Hofstra University philosophy major, tries to fly under that closed-minded radar by avoiding the atheist tag around non-atheists. He finds that labeling does not allow for a free exchange of ideas because of confusion about the terms. “A lot of times I’ve found that people have different connotations of the words atheist and agnostic,” Durwin says. “Many people stereotype atheism as basically another religion, as if it’s a very dogmatic system which says, ‘there’s definitely no God, and I am definitely right.'”

Kenneth Bronstein, president of the New York Atheists, an affiliate of American Atheists that advocates for non-theists’ rights, rejects defining atheism as another brand of faith. Although he encourages adoption of the label, Bronstien’s definition can support the idea that the necessity of it should be as strange as an “a-unicornist” label denoting non-belief in unicorns.

“Atheism is a conclusion, not a belief. That’s a very major difference,” Bronstein says. “Atheism is a conclusion… We’ve done it through rational analysis, scientific evidence.”

Harris supports Bronstein’s definition, calling atheism neither a philosophy nor a worldview, just as “‘non-racism’ is not one.” Accordingly, to categorize oneself as not believing in God seems strange to many, since there is a myriad of other probably non-existent things-like fairies or a flying spaghetti monster-they also don’t believe in.

It follows that the use of atheist unavoidably lends legitimacy to theism by acknowledging it as the majority position. Lori Lipman Brown, director of the Secular Coalition for America, which is based in Washington, D.C., and lobbies for non-theist rights, says that some shy away from using the atheist label for that reason. “Some people don’t like the fact that atheism is defining something by the default,” Brown says. “That theism is the default, and they don’t want to give credence to that.”

Durwin considers the atheism label a deterrent to keeping open productive lines of communication between religious and non-religious Americans. He values the goal of “being able to talk and work through disagreements to get to the best solutions in a political atmosphere,” adding that many immediately dismiss an argument labeled atheistic regardless of its validity.

However, many in the non-theistic community see openly “coming out” as an atheist and encouraging others to do so as the best way to ensure the mainstream recognizes their position and respects their rights

. “If any of us were to turn our back on that label, we would be treating ourselves just as badly as those who attack us,” Brown says. “The other part of that is, the most hated label is ‘atheist,’ so it’s the one we need to stand up for the most in that regard.” Brown parallels the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) movement’s reclamation of “queer” to the non-theistic movement to take back its most volatile label, atheist.

For those like Brown who take a more live-and-let-live position, lobbying for rights more than asserting atheism as correct, the strategic decision to adopt the label is more clear-cut.

“Believers are going to be around for a long time. They’re not going away. And we’re not going away,” says Ronald Aronson, a humanities professor at Wayne State University and author of “Living Without God: New Directions for Atheists, Agnostics, Secularists, and the Undecided.” “And I think we have to learn how to live together and share this country together, because it’s in this country where we have the most issues.”

The danger in not adopting an atheist label lies in potential abuse of rights and lack of representation for the demographic. Aronson argues that a refusal to identify social minorities contributes to their neglect and lack of equal treatment. “It’s like saying if you’re black or if you’re a woman, why can’t you just be a person? Well, try it,” Aronson says. “Try it. I mean the culture has such an effect on identity that you have to position yourself as a woman because it’s in relation to a culture that is male-dominated. I think being secular in America is the same thing.”

Aronson suggests that Americans’ overt, public presentation of personal religiosity speaks to their disregard for alternative perspectives. That openness can signal a tendency among politicians to cater to the majority, citing President Barack Obama’s election as an indicator. “It’s not just that he [publicly displayed his religious conviction] in order to get elected,” Aronson said. “It’s also that he felt reasonably comfortable doing it.”

However, in a 2004 interview with Chicago Sun Times columnist Cathleen Falsani, Obama takes a skeptical stance on religions role in public policy, while maintaining his personal faith. “I think that religion at its best comes with a big dose of doubt,” Obama says. “I think that, particularly as somebody who’s now in the public realm and is a student of what brings people together and what drives them apart, there’s an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty.”

In the United States where President George W. Bush is “not very high on” about 12 million atheistic citizens as reported by Madalyn O’Hair of American Atheists, the controversy over the hated label is central. Rejecting the atheist label as necessary to identify an evidence-based conclusion, and in doing so, keeping lines of communication open, avoiding stigma and rejecting theism as a legitimate, debatable point, seems the better strategic option. Indeed, for those who consider a history of brutal violence and condemnation of scientific advances and judge the faith that allowed it dangerous, arguing against the position without lending it authority, which it already has as the majority position, is the crucial challenge.