So what's making atheism tough this week? Two things.

One is Scott Walker. And I don't just say that on principle, though I can see why you might think that given my history in this space.

On a trade mission to London, Walker was asked at an event whether he believed in evolution. He didn't answer.

Local yokel Christian Schneider, a professional Walker apologist given free rein to write at the state's largest daily newspaper, tweeted out that "Walker didn't answer the evolution [question] because he was afraid his answer would be twisted."

Huh? It's a yes or no question. I am not sure how a simple yes or no could be "twisted." Twisting happens when politicians evade simple yes or no questions. Not that answering yes or no is always the end of the story – think "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" – but a coy decision to "punt," in Walker's own word, on the question just simply invites the pile-on.

In fact, Schneider went on in that tweet: "And coverage of his non-answer proves him right." As if we should be surprised a bunch of people wrangling with the fact that a supposedly battle-tested leader like Walker can't muster a single syllable, affirmative or negative, on a basic question like that. Had Walker offered an actual answer, we might not be talking about this still a week later. This is Politics 101 – and not even what sets my atheist bones a-rattling.

No, here's what atheists like me hate about this kind of thing: evolution is not something you "believe" in. It's real; whether you believe in it or not, evolution is a simple fact of reality. People of faith sometimes have to figure out how they reconcile that reality with the things that are actual beliefs, sure, but they don't get to substitute that faith for reality.

The question shouldn't even be asked. I mean, would the moderator have asked about anything else that is settled science? "Pardon me, Gov. Walker, but have you heard this thing about the earth revolving around the sun? What do you make of that?"

Asking the question offers legitimacy to the anti-science, anti-reality position, and that's no good for anybody.

A parallel might be the debate over how to handle climate change. Studies show that people who see deniers on TV or in the news tend to underestimate just how strong the consensus on climate change actually is. Presenting a reality-denying side of the argument, as if it were as legitimate as those who do the research and understand the problem, actually makes it less likely that anything will be done to address the issue.

A number of people – columnists like James Taranto and Jamelle Bouie, for example – have suggested that the question was a trap from the beginning, with the moderator asking Walker not to weigh in on science but to show his "badge of identity," to use Taranto's phrase. Bouie suggests the question might be a "proxy" for other issues, but why not just ask what you really want to know? Doing that might, you know, be your job.

Which means now I'm mad at Scott Walker and the press. Ugh.

The second thing setting off my atheist alarms this last week is something that really was newsworthy. That's the murder of three observant Muslims in Chapel Hill, North Carolina last Tuesday.

The alleged killer, Craig Steven Hicks, had a history of berating the women he allegedly killed, his neighbors, for wearing traditional Muslim clothing. He posted a bunch of very anti-religious messages on his Facebook page, and proclaimed himself an "anti-theist" (and a bit of a gun nut). Though police and his family are claiming the murders were the result of a "parking dispute," it sure looks like the anti-theism played a role.

The problem is that, in this case as much as when a shooter is Muslim, commentary has run on endlessly about how the shooter's "community" must "confront the extremists" in their midst, to use the words of Reza Aslan speaking to NPR about the anti-theist movement.

Mainstream Muslims are called to account constantly, like after the 2009 shooting at Ft. Hood or after the January attacks on the French newspaper Charlie Hebdo. Now the same is being asked of us atheists.

Look, I'm not a fan of the Bill Maher-flavored anti-theism, the kind of atheism that doesn't just rest secure in non-belief but actively mocks and derides the religious. Having grown up in a deeply religious family, I get that most people of faith are decent people, and there's no point in being a jerk just to be a jerk – which is Maher's whole schtick. But the fact we share non-belief hardly means I am responsible for Maher's jerkitude. Nor would he listen to me if I asked him to dial it down.

People who go beyond jerkitude to murder – whether over parking or cartoons – are outliers, crazy, even more unlikely to have listened to any moderate members of any of their communities anyway. So why the regular calls for we moderates to do something?

What's most galling, though, is how when professed Christians go on shooting sprees, no one ever demands the moderates in their communities "confront the extremists."

It's almost like this country harbors a real animus toward religious (and a-religious) minorities! And until that's properly disposed of, it's probably always going to be a bad week to be an atheist.