The word "status" is too wide brush; sometimes is may be argued that both sides have higher status depending on which aspects one focuses on. Also, it may depend on country; although I think this specific case should be true for USA, too. Instead of debating whether a falling tree in an empty forest makes a sound, let's address the specific claims:

• Scientists are respected (by some parts of society), and they are often irreligious. The state supports them by giving them money, letting them run universities, etc.
• Priests are respected (by some parts of society). The state supports them by giving them special tax status, etc. (details depend on specific country).
• Schools teach secular science. Sometimes there are problems, but the victories are overwhelmingly on one side.
• Expressions of religion are pushed into schools. Depending on the specific country we may be talking about mandatory religious education, crosses on the walls, or making students recite the Pledge of Allegiance with added words "under God".
• Many religious people openly say they wouldn't vote an atheist into an office. Therefore people have to pay lip service to religion if they compete for an elected position. (On the other hand, politics is always about saying what your voters want to hear.)
• Ignoring religious rules is something powerful people can do to signal their power.
• It is socially accepted for religious people to say offensive things about atheists; things that would be classified as an obvious hate speech if they were made about some other group of people outside of religious context.
• Laws are mostly secular. Religious people can get some victories like preventing gay marriage; but they are not able to have people executed for heresy, and usually can't even make abortion illegal. (There are countries where this is completely different, but most of the developed world is like this.)

Okay, now it seems balanced, perhaps even better for the atheist side. Seems like religion's power is mostly in "talking", while atheists have power in "doing". An atheist must sometimes pay lip service to the religion, but the religious people are aware that often this is all they get. Now if the atheists stop even being respectful to religious people, they lost it all... or must organize a counter-attack. The religious people still have an advantage in numbers. But if they lose real power and respect, they will start losing the numbers, too. And I guess it already happens... just very slowly.

Looking back to my previous post... I guess this is what it feels like from inside to believe to be arguing for the underdog when in reality one merely signals their belonging to the winning faction. Interesting!