In a survey on nationwide religious trends released March 9, the American Religious Identification Survey, which Trinity College sponsored, found that Americans who define themselves as non-religious are on the rise. The survey stated that 15 percent of Americans define themselves as “non-religious,” which is a 6.8 percent increase since 1990. The strangest aspect of the data is the number who identify as agnostic or atheist, only 1.6 percent. The survey finds that those whose beliefs can be categorized as atheist or agnostic is 12 percent. Why is there such a large gap?  The reason is simple: fear of discrimination.America was founded on freedom of religion, as well as freedom from religion.  Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin all held religious beliefs that ranged from tolerance and respect of atheists to out-right skepticism of religion. If only the majority of Americans today shared their tolerance.  In a recent Zogby poll, the pollsters found that a majority of Americans would vote for a Mormon, a Muslim or a homosexual for president before voting for an atheist. This is startling since Muslims represent .6 percent of the population, Mormons about 1.4 percent, with atheists or agnostics comprising a whopping 12 percent.   Recently, the University instituted the position of Assistant Director for Native-American Student Affairs to advocate for the Native-American population at the University. If the Native student population deserves a representative, then the atheist and agnostic student population needs a voice on campus as well.  Granted, a religious stance is different than an ethnic group, but representation in Student Affairs should be based on level of discrimination faced, in contrast to inherent qualities such as ancestry. If the University feels that certain groups need centers and representation, why just stop at a limited number of minority groups?  If the Native-American population and the GLBT population need campus advocates, why not atheists and agnostics? Some may respond that what makes atheists and agnostics unworthy of a center on campus is that a person’s stance on theology is a choice in contrast to sexual orientation and race, which are matters of inborn traits. A person’s stance on the fundamental questions of existence are a choice.  It is one of the most important choices a person can make. Most religions place major emphasis on individual choice; to belittle religion and irreligion as matters of choice does not disqualify them from the right to representation. Atheists and agnostics need help to erase stigmas attached to their lack of belief that has led to discrimination in many areas of society, campus not excluded. Atheists, in particular, should not be afraid to declare their beliefs openly without fear of negative consequences.  I believe a center on campus would be a wonderful and positive apparatus to reduce discrimination.  If the University sees it necessary to add a Native-American student center during this budget crunch, they should also make room for atheists and agnostics.Some Americans treat atheists and Agnostics with suspicion and revulsion; many times resulting in outright discrimination. One of the most blatant examples is the Boy Scouts of America, an organization that is as American as Apple iPods. The BSA still doesn’t allow Atheist and Agnostic scouts or scoutmasters, stating in their bylaws: “The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God.” This position has come under fire recently due to the copious amount of funding the BSA receives from the federal government.  As an atheist Eagle Scout, I find its position indefensible. The policy was created due to rapid gain in the Moral Majority’s influence on the BSA in the 1970s and does not reflect the spirit of the tradition of scouting and the Constitution. What do Winston Churchill, Warren Buffett, Charles Schulz, Katherine Hepburn, Pat Tillman, Bill Gates,  George Will and Bill Nye the Science Guy have in common? They are all atheists or agnostics. All of these irreligious figures, and many more, are respected members of our society and history. To disqualify them, or anyone else, from leadership positions based on their religious beliefs would be a serious error.