> there's plenty of evidence to show that being female, being black, being Muslim, and being a communist in the US is more likely to have a negative effect, compared to someone male, white, Lutheran, and Democrat.
I don't think my point was entirely made if you're saying this.
While I wholeheartedly agree with you, the premise was that it's a whole lot better to be female/black/communist/non-Protestant in 1980 than it was to be in 1940. The point that I was making was that it was a whole lot better to be Muslim in 1980 than it is to be in 2014 and that if anything, rather than this being some period we'll reflect on sadly like Germany, we're simply returning to the mean.
Tangentially, things are going to get worse for everyone disenfranchised, not just Muslims and those who look like them.
> I don't think my point was entirely made if you're saying this.
There are two parts. First was your statement
> There were a brief few decades in the United States where you couldn't be born the "wrong color", born the "wrong gender" ...
I agree with jwise0, that I can't think of a decade where this assertion was true. It looks like you've toned your original statement.
Second, you pointed to "general sentiment" among Americans.
This isn't a valid basis for making a useful inference. In a hypothetical case where 97% are in the majority and 3% are an oppressed minority, then it's entirely possible that general sentiment is that things are well, while if you ask the 3% they will tell you that things are horrible.
Thus, if all "bad" groups but one - let's say "atheists" - achieve parity, then your analysis, based on "general sentiment", would conclude that things have improved. While my argument is that you have to look to the traditionally-considered "bad" groups specifically.
And yes, tolerance for traditionally "bad" groups have generally improved. I pointed out research which agrees with that statement, though it does comment that atheists are now the least accepted.
> Atheists are at the top of the list of groups that Americans find problematic in both public and private life, and the gap between acceptance of atheists and acceptance of other racial and religious minorities is large and persistent. It is striking that the rejection of atheists is so much more common than rejection of other stigmatized groups. For example, while rejection of Muslims may have spiked in post-9/11 America, rejection of atheists was higher. The possibility of same-sex marriage has widely been seen as a threat to a biblical definition of marriage, as Massachusetts, Hawaii, and California have tested the idea, and the debate over the ordination of openly gay clergy has become a central point of controversy within many churches. In our survey, however, concerns about atheists were stronger than concerns about homosexuals. Across subgroups in our sample, negative views of atheists are strong, the differences being largely a matter of degree
It does report Gallup polling data which suggests that almost 50% of the US would vote for an well-qualified atheist for President, and that percentage is the best it's ever been. But most Americans would rather have a homosexual president, and acceptance of a homosexual president or any other polled category has increased more rapidly than an atheist one.
I don't think my point was entirely made if you're saying this.
While I wholeheartedly agree with you, the premise was that it's a whole lot better to be female/black/communist/non-Protestant in 1980 than it was to be in 1940. The point that I was making was that it was a whole lot better to be Muslim in 1980 than it is to be in 2014 and that if anything, rather than this being some period we'll reflect on sadly like Germany, we're simply returning to the mean.
Tangentially, things are going to get worse for everyone disenfranchised, not just Muslims and those who look like them.