Seriously, I could make this a series. I know I’ve talked about it before a couple of times, but it continues to amaze me how liberals can get things so utterly and completely wrong. I know it shouldn’t, after all, I talk to theists who are just as clueless, no matter how many times you point out the errors in their thinking, which leads me to think there is a lot more in common between theists and liberals than they’d like to think.
Anyhow, this came up over on The Atheist Revolution, in a post called Atheism, Race and Social Justice, where vjack responded to Sikivu Hutchinson’s article Atheism has a big race problem that no one’s talking about, that was posted in the Washington Post a while back. Wow, is that enough bouncing around for you?
Anyhow, the gist of the post is the same old tired social justice nonsense that floats around the heavily liberal atheism “movement” that says that because the most visible leadership of the atheism “movement” is white, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, and wealthy, we can’t forget wealthy, because that’s a horrible thing for liberals because it means these people are actually successful in the real world, because of all of that, there has to be some kind of grand conspiracy to keep women and gays and black people and transgendered people, essentially anyone who isn’t white, male, cisgendered, heterosexual and that all-important wealthy, down. And if that’s not a heck of a run-on sentence, I don’t know what is. This all brings us back around to what, as I’ve argued before, is one of the central tenets of liberalism, equality of outcome.
Essentially, that means that if people within a particular group are not represented in their racial, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and other factors, precisely as they appear in society as a whole, something is desperately wrong and the social justice warriors have to spring to the rescue! There has to be someone to blame and it’s almost always those aforementioned white, cisgendered, heterosexual wealthy men. Those are the boogiemen of the liberals, in fact, if you were to switch out the race or the gender of those in charge of a movement, such that it was no longer white men, the liberals have nothing to say about it. You know, if we pointed out that, in professional basketball, black men, which make up 13% of the U.S. population, but are more than 75% of players in the NBA, liberals wouldn’t scream racism. Racism only applies to white men, apparently. They might, if you catch them on a good day, complain that there are no women in the NBA, but they’d still blame white men for that travesty. Yeah, they are hypocritical that way.
So when I reminded them of a story I covered a while back about black atheist groups, and in particularly a story about the National Day of Solidarity for Black Non-Believers, that didn’t get a peep. The fact that there are specifically black atheist organizations out there that exist primarily for black members, doesn’t bother them. That’s not racist. It’s the national atheist organizations that do not mention race at all, they are not American White Atheists or the Center for White Inquiry, nor do they deny blacks or women or gays membership anywhere in their by-laws, but these groups all have to be racist because they happen to be run by white guys! Evidence? Who needs evidence? It’s a liberal assertion, they take it on blind faith because the makeup of the atheist “movement” isn’t exactly what they wish it was.
And why isn’t it? That’s certainly a fair question and one that deserves to be addressed, not necessarily so it can be changed, but so it can be understood. Certainly, there isn’t a single reason, like the machinations of the Bavarian Illuminati, to control the Bilderbergers in a grand scheme to make atheism a movement of primarily white men. That’s just stupid. To do this, we have to look at individual groups to see what might influence that group to act as it acts with regard to their religious beliefs. Let’s look at blacks since that’s what started this whole mess. The demographics matter. According to studies, 88% of blacks in the U.S. are religious, with 45% of them being Baptists. In fact, according to Pew Research, black people top the religiosity charts in America, more black people identify as strongly religious than any other racial group. Therefore, we should expect that blacks would be under-represented in any non-religious group, simply because they tend to be over-represented in religious adherence. This is a cultural factor. White guys aren’t holding guns to their heads and making them be religious. This is personal choice and we can understand it as a cultural thing, not a conspiracy thing. Likewise, women tend to be more religious than men do. I suspect this is also cultural, but there may be a psychological component as well. According to George H. Gallup Jr., “A mountain of Gallup survey data attests to the idea that women are more religious than men, hold their beliefs more firmly, practice their faith more consistently, and work more vigorously for the congregation.” Why? Well, according to Rodney Stark, a professor of sociology and comparative religion at the University of Washington, “Studies of biochemistry imply that both male irreligiousness and male lawlessness are rooted in the fact that far more males than females have an underdeveloped ability to inhibit their impulses, especially those involving immediate gratification and thrills.” It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just reality. Whether liberals like this reality or not is irrelevant. Based on the biology and the sociology, we would expect to have more white males involved in atheism.
But we have to remember that liberalism isn’t about the data, it isn’t about the facts, it’s about the emotion. It’s about feeling good about the conclusions that you come to. It’s easier for liberals who by and large hate the majority anyhow, and I will admit there are some good reasons historically for doing so, to simply keep blaming their favorite whipping boy for everything that goes wrong in their lives. It all has to be the fault of the white guys. It doesn’t matter if there’s any actual evidence that they’ve done anything wrong, the fact that they exist is all that matters.
So how about a last bit of data that the liberals will ignore. 63% of Americans are non-Hispanic whites. They hold the majority in 49 out of 50 states. Worldwide, males outnumber females by a certain small percentage, between 1-7%. Only 3.08% of Americans identify as LGBT, according to a 2011 study by the Williams Institute. Between 2-5% of Americans identify as transgender, or at least as identifying with the other gender. Therefore, numerically, in any organization at all, even ignoring what I said above, the most common individual who might be part of any group is a white, cisgender, straight guy! It’s mathematical! And the wealth? The only people who are going to be able to spend a great deal of time and energy on a social movement like this are those who have money to do so! It’s no surprise that Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett, the four horsemen of the “New Atheist movement” were all successful and skilled writers, professors and speakers before they ever got involved. The fact that they all happen to be white men, again, is based on demographics, not conspiracy.
It’s really sad that I have to keep explaining this to liberals. I know they won’t listen this time any more than they did in the past because, as I said, the facts don’t matter, only the emotional high they get from their beliefs, just like the religious do. They want to champion the underdog, even when the so-called underdog needs no champion. Most of these liberals who are whining the loudest are, themselves, white, male, straight and well enough off to be able to spend time pounding on the keyboard for extended periods of time. They are upset in other people’s behalf, not because anyone else needs their outrage, but because it makes them feel better about themselves.
And that kind of sums up liberalism in a nutshell.