The article makes a relatively clear point about individuals, communities, and religious identity.

It does not discuss forms of government.

Further, the question was not whether atheists couldn't be trusted more than others. The assertion is simply that they are the least-trusted group. A fine distinction but a necessary one.

Your table and comment don't seem to follow the premise of the article, but it contributes two important problems worth addressing.

1. Let's ignore the fact that you've interchangeably used 'atheist' and terms such as 'marxism.' You are attributing to an entire group, the actions of individuals. In fact, in the U.S. atheism is most prominent among prestigious scientists who, by most accounts, are a peaceable people.

2. Unlike other differences of opinion, it is clear from your comment that you view atheists as morally lacking in some way. This is not the case for other religious minorities. In other words, as long as a person has SOME religion, and it doesn't really matter which one, they're seen as more morally upstanding than their atheist pals. Seemingly by virtue of their metaphysics.

But this is the premise of the article: that religion is not simply about theological metaphysics or epistemology. It's about community and culture. To be religious is to belong to a community to which the atheist is an outsider. It makes sense, then, that the atheist would be distrusted more than any other group.

But an explanation is not a justification and unfair treatment is unfair treatment.

Great insight. I think you've hit on something important. The fact that the information age is simply presenting individuals with a larger quantity of data poses a serious problem. Much of this data is nonsense (television ads, worthless "news", and so on). The other side to this is that the data we are presented with is stunningly different. One day we might be presented with nightly news about mortgage-backed securities and the next day we might be talking about the side effects of steroid use.

While it certainly is the case that we can't all be experts at everything anymore in this age of specialization (at least in a way that makes us useful like Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin); it is also the case that healthy skepticism, conscious attempts to stay informed, knowledge about human tendencies, and a general familiarity with math and science are timeless mental faculties that can only serve to improve our culture.

As a social scientist I always shy away from throwing the word 'intelligence' around, but I most definitely agree with your point about ecological knowledge (in particular, knowledge of the ramifications of our actions). I would surmise that this is partly due to self interest (packaging makes our lives easier), but also perhaps partly due to our inability to conceptualize large numbers and long time horizons in our heads. Particularly when our consciousnesses have not been raised by watching a scary documentary about how our oceans are filling up with plastic and that sort of thing. Consciousness raising campaigns are undoubtedly good for instilling perspective and delivering a point; sadly, our memories are short, our habits are difficult to break, and the ascetic life is a tough one to live––especially after we've indulged ourselves the way we have.

Unfortunately my list of helpful books and articles and the quotation were cut in the editing process. My quotation was from Thomas Jefferson who made the following remark to Charles Yancey in 1816, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

I have a list of worldview-changing websites and easy-to-read books I'd like to share.

Wikis
Fallacies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Biases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Websites
Your morals http://www.yourmorals.org/explore.php
TED http://www.ted.com/index.php
Implicit Association Test https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/

Books that get you excited about science (in no particular order)

The age of American unreason http://www.amazon.com/Age-American-Unreason-Susan-Jacoby/dp/1905847823/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237890972&sr=1-1 by Susan Jacoby

The blank slate http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0142003344/ref=ed_oe_p and How the mind works http://www.amazon.com/How-Mind-Works-Steven-Pinker/dp/0393318486/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237890606&sr=1-1 by Steven Pinker

How to think straight about psychology http://www.amazon.com/How-Think-Straight-About-Psychology/dp/0205485138/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237824965&sr=1-1 by Keith Stanovich

Moral politics http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Politics-Liberals-Conservatives-Think/dp/0226467716 by George Lakoff

On the origin of species http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-Facsimile-First/dp/1592242863/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237890707&sr=1-1 by Charles Darwin (still remarkably readable despite the Victorian language)

Representing and intervening http://www.amazon.com/Representing-Intervening-Introductory-Philosophy-Natural/dp/0521282462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237890809&sr=1-1 by Ian Hacking

The world is flat http://www.amazon.com/World-Flat-3-0-History-Twenty-first/dp/0312425074 by Tom Friedman

The journey of man http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Man-Genetic-Odyssey/dp/0812971469/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I37C1V070OHGRQ&colid=3NWJF52LBRQ49 by Spencer Wells

The origin of humankind http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Humankind-Science-Masters/dp/0465053130/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3227AFAS18OUZ&colid=3NWJF52LBRQ49 by Richard Leakey

Sync http://www.amazon.com/SYNC-Order-Emerges-Universe-Nature/dp/0786887214/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3PZE4DU1UCIU7&colid=3NWJF52LBRQ49 by Steven Strogatz

I'd love to hear other recommendations

I again defer to a proper understanding of history and reason regarding Nazism and Hitler and racism and eugenics and the 'adverse effects of secular mentality' and the 'deadly cold-blooded logic which does not hold the value of a lone human life as something special.'

I'll leave it to the readers to decide if those things are relevant to the article or if more secular societies like Sweden are devoid of compassion.

You seem to draw a false distinction between religion being intertwined with culture and religion being a 'complete lifestyle which one lives by.' This is precisely my point. For some people, their religious identity colors every aspect of their existence. These are people with typically quite insulated worldviews––so far unbreached by dissenting points of view. In other words, they aren't good targets because their opinions are not liable to change.

For the majority of church-going westerners however, religion is intertwined with culture but it is not an all-encompassing way of life. In addition to their religious faith, their worldviews are shaped and influenced by a complex barrage of oblique or diametrically opposed views as well. These people are better targets for the secular agenda because they are simply more likely to come around to the idea that religious propositions and the culture of religious appeasment can––and ought to––be separated.

VERY interesting take on this. I'd love to hear specific proposals about how we might bring religious people to be more comfortable with atheists. My suggestions for atheists were rather vague and I wish I were creative enough to proffer some solid ideas.

Any concrete thoughts on this matter?

Jeff: Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Just an FYI about my religiosity. I'm about as atheist as they come haha. I think it's interesting that you interpreted my shallow defense of religious culture as an evenhanded statement from a somewhat religious individual.

Also, many thanks for your reply to Muntasir. I wasn't about to respond to the myriad unrelated comments about Hitler, creationism, Communism, and so on in a post about culture and the political tension between atheists and theists. I found your response to be more than adequate :)