My name is Andrew Seidel. I’m an attorney at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, headquartered here in Madison. I’m also a resident of this city.

I am a son, a citizen, a husband, a father to be … and an atheist. I believe in many things: friendship, compassion, public service, leaving the world a better place, and love. I just don’t believe in god. I struggle with my mortality, strive to maintain my morality, and seek to spread happiness. I just don’t believe in god.

In many places in this country, those words would not only condemn me to ridicule and alienation, but open me up to discrimination. Legal, unchallengeable discrimination.

The Arkansas Constitution says that “No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office … nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.”1

South Carolina’s state law mandates “that the president of the University shall not be an atheist or infidel.”2

Texas prohibits religious tests for public office, provided the person “acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”3

It has always been acceptable to discriminate against atheists. And even though these codified examples cannot be enforced, there are countless examples of atheists being discriminated against in this country.

In Kansas City and South Carolina we’ve seen shelters and soup kitchens reject atheist volunteers—willing, helping hands rejected because their heads could not accept a belief in god.

Other discrimination is more insidious and destructive. We’ve seen a rise in atheist parents having custody denied or curtailed because of their irreligion.4 We’ve seen model employees outed as nonbelievers and then immediately begin receiving lower performance evaluations and even being fired.5

We see discounts to religious people, which effectively charge atheists a higher price for the same goods. Here in Madison one store gave out free gallons of milk to Christians, while forcing atheists to pay full price.6

Schools block atheist groups from forming and filter out atheist and freethought websites as “alternative” beliefs.7 If any group in this country needs protection it’s the one that is least liked and most distrusted. When it comes to voting for an otherwise qualified candidate, atheists rank below Jewish, Mormon, LGBT and Muslim Candidates—we fall 14 percentage points below a gay or lesbian candidate, simply because of our irreligion.8 The same trend holds for parents asked about potential spouses for their children—atheists fall well below every other group.9

A December 2011 study found that atheists are among our society’s most distrusted groups. We ranked below Christians, Muslims, gay men, feminists, and Jews— ranking at the bottom, with rapists, as least trustworthy.10

Of course, it is easier to hide one’s atheism than sexual orientation or skin color because it’s less visible. But nobody should have to hide who they are in order to be treated fairly. It’s time that atheists enjoy the same protections as other Americans, and I encourage this council set an example and take this historic first step.

Thank you.

1 Ark. Const. art. XIX, § 1.

2 S.C. Code Ann. § 59-117-100.

3 Tex. Const. art. I, § 4.

4 FFRF received 15 complaints on these issues from 2013-2014. According to Constitutional Scholar Eugene Volokh the following cases all involve “discrimination against the irreligious or less religious: Blevins v. Bardwell, 784 So. 2d 166, 175 (Miss. 2001); Staggs v. Staggs, 2005 WL 1384525 (Miss. App.); Brekeen v. Brekeen, 880 So. 2d 280, 282 (Miss. 2004); Turner v. Turner, 824 So. 2d 652, 655-56 (Miss. App. 2002); Pacheco v. Pacheco, 770 So. 2d 1007, 1011 (Miss. App. 2000); Weigand v. Houghton, 730 So.2d 581 (Miss. 1999); Johnson v. Gray, 859 So. 2d 1006, 1014-15 (Miss. 2003); McLemore v. McLemore, 762 So. 2d 316 (Miss. 2000); Hodge v. Hodge, 188 So. 2d 240 (Miss. 1966); Johns v. Johns, 918 S.W.2d 728 (Ark. App. 1996); Ark. Sup. Ct. admin. order no. 15 (enacted 1999); Peacock v. Peacock, 903 So.2d 506, 513-14 (La. App. 2005); Pahal v. Pahal, 606 So. 2d 1359, 1362 (La. App. 1992); Ulvund v. Ulvund, 2000 WL 33407372 (Mich. App.); Mackenzie v. Cram, 1998 WL 1991050 (Mich. App.); Jimenez v. Jimenez, 1996 WL 33347958 (Mich. App.); Jonhston v. Plessel, 2004 WL 384143 (Minn. Ct. App.); In re Storlein, 386 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); McAlister v. McAlister, 747 A.2d 390, 393 (Pa. Super. 2000); Thomas v. Thomas, 739 A.2d 206, 213 (Pa. Super. 1999); Gancas v. Schultz, 683 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 1996); Scheeler v. Rudy, 2 Pa. D. & C. 3d 772, 780 (Com. Pl. 1977); Shainwald v. Shainwald, 395 S.E.2d 441, 446 (S.C. App. 1990); Hulm v. Hulm, 484 N.W.2d 303, 305 & n.* (S.D. 1992); In re Davis, 30 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000); Snider v. Grey, 688 S.W.2d 602, 611 (Tex. Ct. App. 1985); In re F.J.K., 608 S.W.2d 301 (Tex. Ct. App. 1980); In re Marriage of

Moorhead, 224 N.W.2d 242, 244 (Iowa 1974); Ahlman v. Ahlman, 267 N.W.2d 521, 523 (Neb. 1978); Dean v. Dean, 232 S.E.2d 470, 471-72 (N.C. App. 1977); Robert O. v. Judy E., 90 Misc.2d 439, 442 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1977).” See also, Larro Ava, Atheism, Divorce, and Custody Battles, ATHEIST HAVEN, Nov. 15, 2007, available at http://atheisthaven.blogspot.com/2007/11/atheism- divorce-and-custody-battles.html; Cenk Uygur, Shocking: Agnostic Dad Loses Custody of Kids, ALTERNET, Nov. 30, 2010, available at http://www.alternet.org/story/149037/shocking%3A_agnostic_dad_loses_custody_of_kids; Ed Brayton, New Ruling on Religion and Custody, SCIENCE BLOGS, Jan.2, 2008, available at http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/01/02/new-ruling-on-religion-and-cus/; Atheism and Custody Cases, The Friendly Atheist, Jan. 2, 2008, available at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/02/atheism-and-custody-cases/ ; Austin Cline, Atheists Discriminated Against in Child Custody Cases, available at http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/03/30/atheists-discriminated-against-in-child-custody-cases.htm.

5 FFRF has had nearly 30 of these complaints from 2013-2014. See also Hammer, J.H., Cragun, R.T., Hwang, K and Smith, J.M. 2012. Forms, Frequency, and Correlates of Perceived Anti- Atheist Discrimination, in SECULARISM AND NONRELIGION 1:43-67, DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/snr.ad

6 See Saga of a Civil Rights Complaint, THE FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, available at http://ffrf.org/outreach/item/18533-saga-of-a-civil-rights-complaint.

7 See School Won’t Censor Secular websites, THE FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, available at http://ffrf.org/legal/other-legal-successes/item/22185-school-won-t-censor-secular- websites-november-14-2014; FFRF Unblocks Atheist Websites from San Antonio ISD Filter, THE FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, available at http://ffrf.org/legal/other-legal-successes/item/12575-ffrf-unblocks-atheist-websites-from-san- antonio-isd-filter-feb-16-2012; Indianapolis Public Schools Changes Discriminatory Internet filtering, THE FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, available at http://ffrf.org/legal/other-legal-successes/item/12461-indianapolis-public-schools-changes- discriminatory-internet-filtering.

8 A more recent study put the number who would vote for atheists even lower. See Daisy Grewal, In Atheists we Distrust, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (Jan 17, 2012) (noting that only 45% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist presidential candidate; and that atheists are rated the least desirable groups as potential son/daughters-in-law) available at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/.

9 John Allen Paulos, Who’s Counting: Distrusting Atheists, ABC News, April 2, 2006, available at http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422.

10 See Will M. Gervais et. al., Do you believe in atheists? Distrust is central to anti-atheist prejudice, JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol 101(6), Dec 2011, 1189- 1206, data and study at http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Gervais%20et%20al- %20Atheist%20Distrust.pdf