In an otherwise reasonably balanced article, Garry Abrams reveals a disturbing negative bias toward nonbelievers.
The statement, "In the rare instance when an employer imposes religion on employees, a disgruntled atheist or agnostic is usually ready to make a federal case out of it," implies such individuals are especially irascible and over-reactive. Would not the substitution of "Christian employer" and "Jewish" or "Moslem employee" (or almost any other permutation of philosophies) have been equally applicable as well as prejudicial?
