[quote=Jorick]
Yes, early Christians were persecuted by the predominantly Jewish Romans and used the symbol to secretly meet and such; however, as I said in what you quoted, I'm well aware certain religions have been hated and discriminated against before.[/quote]

I'll expand where you finished about the Ichthys because, you know, early Judeo-Christian iconography is absolutely my drug.

The Ichthys was used as a symbol not necessarily to just meet, but to show good faith. One would draw half in the sand, a simple and non-committal half oval. The other would complete the image in order to show they too followed the Way. I would also note in responding to this question from MDK, that the group wasn't even popularly known as Christians quite yet when this symbol emerged. Generally, those who believed were considered radical Jews, Followers of the Way was a popular term used in surrounding Paul and elsewhere too. 

See, the great beauty of the Ichthys is that it's really a Jewish symbol hijacked by Christianity. The symbol was used not for its quick and easy ability to draw, but for what it represented. In Judaism there was a prophesy that a Messiah would come, Messiah not meaning Son of God or any of that, but instead a High Ruler or otherwise Moses-like figure to lead them to a new and better world. This story came up when Judaism still technically hadn't assembled that whole 'afterlife' thing. For a very long while the religion focused on the world as it was and how it could be changed, on Earth, given time. Creations like Hassatan, Gehanna, and Sheol were rarer and only gained popularity with exposure with early Greek cultures, the emergence of Hassatan specifically rousing when the Temple of Solomon was plundered and destroyed the first time. This also led to even more calls for the Messiah to usher in the new land as Jews lost the physical center of their faith and culture (you can see this marked shift in the authors of Isaiah from this time too!). So back to this Messiah, who is very popular at this point. One deed thought to happen would be their killing the Leviathan, a great beast, a serpent in fact, in Jewish lore, and using that one fish to feed the Jews. That last story is big was popular in Judaism, undoubtedly why the synoptic books note the story of the loaves and fishes as well as Passover (among other reasons with that one). The symbol is not just for Christianity, but it's a direct proclamation that Yeshua is in fact the Messiah, as in [I]the[/I] and not but another. The Ichthys is a bold statement. 

Also, just throwing this out there, early Christians were seen as a sect within Judaism and afforded the right to their beliefs for a while in the Roman Empire. Things didn't change until later, when Christians started separating themselves after the revolution leading to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Jewish-Christians were basically absent from the revolt and the schism there only grew. Eventually it became a matter of respecting the empire and power, which I believe led to the executions of Simon-Peter and Paul. A lot of the persecution here did not come as 'You're Christian and we disagree', but rather the requirement for a community to operate and subjugate in one way and refusing. I don't defend the persecution there either, I favour protest in many cases let alone this one, but it's important to know that the belief was not necessarily what caused the targeting. 

[quote=Add those two things together and I think they make a decent answer to why there is no special word for anti-religious (or anti-non-religious) discrimination. Give it some time and there might be some ridiculous term (religiophobia maybe? whatever ends up sticking on social media and then gets picked up by news media first will be the one, I wager, regardless of how silly or inaccurate it might be) to describe this relatively new kind of discrimination. Honestly, I'm surprised Fox News hasn't already pushed something like this, particularly Bill O'Reilly with his major segments about anti-Christian hatred around every holiday. Here's hoping that whatever becomes the popular term, it isn't religiophobia or anything as awfully stupid as that.[/quote]

No, please, can it be religiophobia? I mean, religio means wisdom, reverence to an idea, right, so Fear of Wisdom? I love that. 

I have to agree with you, Jorick, about religion not being an innate characteristic -- but let's rectify that statement a bit. Religion [I]was[/I] an innate characteristic with rituals and stories tied into every bit of one's culture. In many countries and for much of time Cultural Heritage included Cultural Wisdoms, the latter often tying directly to the mythos of their people. These mythos, or in other words stories, need not be about gods or faith, but merely wisdom and truths seen as sacred. Typing this, I guess one would liken mythos to philosophy, in that they investigate how the world and reality works, albeit taking a more symbolic than physical path. The point is I think this deep rooted connection between culture and faith-community does, in a way, make the characteristic innate in that one does not choose into what culture they're born and raised within. Even if one turns away from their faith-community early on, they still have those stories about the manger, the man and the whale, and all that jazz going around in their heads. All that said, I believe America is stepping away from this connection as our population becomes more secularist so that, someday, theism may gain its own word in terms of bigotry.

All that said, I agree with you. For very long the religious have outnumbered the otherwise, and while there may be terms against particular religions or non-believers, with religion usually meaning power, there aren't many against it as an entire entity. It's hard to use oppressive language against an overwhelming oppressor.