Well that was a nice softball pitch of Bill Maher, neglecting to discuss the HRC campaign's attempt to use the atheism of her primary competitor Sanders as a weapon against him, based on anti-atheist hostility. Atheism and perceived leftism apparently being bigger evils than Trump for HRC, given Sanders was polling better than her vs. Trump at the time.
And bigger picture, it is not merely about religious zealots with hostility to atheists, but atheists and agnostics themselves who are willing to go along with such hostility in order to further their own power or agenda (to the extent of hiding their atheism, as Lugaro "should have done" according to "common sense"). But that really leads to a shared dynamic of religion and atheism, in that despite one being a positive belief while the other is a negative belief, they both are categories which really fail to be definitive categories of meaning, with internal differences in both camps arguably as large as between the camps, and neither camp really able to function as solid interest faction vs. sub-sections within each in fact having reason to ally with factions within the other camp against factions of their own camp. Climate change, abortion, gay rights, worker rights and social justice, etc... all make the theist/atheist divide meaningless.
I think it is about people's comfort zone, and a differing philosophical belief which is perceived to challenge their own makes some people feel uncomfortable. Obviously, most people would prefer to back politicians whose philosophical/religious beliefs exactly match theirs... of course since that isn't possible for the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time, most implicitly do accept difference by focusing on core values which are most important to them. So the question is whether the mere distinction of religion vs. atheism is really the primary core value for them, so much that somebody else who is ignorant, selfish, destructive, careless, etc, but who claims compatable (even if not identical) religious belief, is their preferred political option. Or I suppose it is the desire for religion to be their central belief above all others, and inability to reconcile that desire with the fact that they may share as many or more beliefs with certain atheists or agnostics than with others who claim to share same belief re: religion, a situation which implicitly undercuts the centrality of their religious belief. Thus hostility to atheists is as much avoidance of dealing with that situation, rather than it is about overt hatred of atheists qua atheists. In other words, it is not hatred/fear of atheists, but hatred/fear of idea of finding common ground with atheists vs. other religious people, which threatens to undercut the centrality of their religious belief.
I see people like the Catholic Pope who now even state that atheists are eligible to go to heaven, as an example of those able to overcome that divide to focus on truer core values for them. Obviously many are yet unable to make that leap. Obviously, as shown by the proportion of atheist population vs. atheist politicians, atheist people (who vote/ politically participate) are in large part able to overcome that distinction to support religious politicans with shared core values and agendas. Part of the issue is visibility, or discrepancy in visibility, namely that religious politicians may be happy to receive support of atheists, but some religious people are averse to giving their support to politicians who merely are open about their atheism. (to distinguish between atheists actively hostile to religion, who themselves make the distinction the issue) And getting back to previous point, the difference could also be that many atheists don't make atheism their core central belief over all other beliefs, of course being merely a negative/lack of belief, it is more amenable to being juggled as one belief amongst others (that again, they obviously would prefer supporting politicians with 100% matching beliefs, but atheism doesn't need to be that central belief)
Obama bringing up the "but at least atheists are rarely overtly oppressed or harmed, outside of politics" is obviously sidestepping the gross assymettry of the situation, honestly in a way that could be compared to many other political issues. E.g., "blacks are no longer enslaved or officially segregated, so there is no problem", "everybody has 1 vote and free speech, so there is no problem with political representation or structure of politics", etc. Obviously it is good to not have the worst case scenario, but how does that obviate the need to address more nuanced issues? And like all these topics, it isn't even about one "side" or group winning or losing, but about the process of engagement. The media personality Maher seemed to engage Obama on this issue thru noting Obama actually mentioned the existence of atheists in public speech, which is an utter rarity despite atheists being part of civil society for many centuries, better forgotten than to bring up what is uncomfortable to some. Obviously nobody actually forgets atheists existence, but it is easier for some to avoid thinking of them, then feel stress when pushed "how to create a possitive narrative about the existence of atheists and my co-existence with them".
I unfortunately do not closely follow PR politics, but from first glance Googling, I take it that candidate Lugaro's position on PR sovereignty/status with US is... agnostic? I'm not sure how viable that position is (at least in long term), given the number of other issues that tie in with it, though I guess if the perspective is just taken as short-term policy it can have appeal in a situation where larger issues are unresolved, albeit it does implicitly end up promoting a certain perspective, not the least by simply removing those long term political issues from consideration to leave only narrow details as political choices... That said, it perhaps makes it even more silly how that agnosticism is not the issue, but her atheism re: religion is.
Currently Online 
