But it's no bigger than the race problem of some religions and sects.

Given the small size of the atheist community the lack of headline grabbing non-Anglo leaders is a problem but one likely to correct itself.

Last edited Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:22 AM - Edit history (1)

The answer is that religion, in spite of occasional help, is deeper down, racist.

"Slaves, obey your masters" the Bible tells us. Genocide is common in the Bible. God favors the people of "Israel" over others it usually seems.

Though the quotes were in part from the OT, my subject in any case, was the adaptation of Judaism by Christianity. Where recent statistics correlate poverty to religiosity.

By the way? My family name is Jewish/Hebrew. I've been active in the Jewish community too.

Just another incendiary attack or slur. By Rug.

That's the whole point.

Yes, there is an atheist community because we are a self identified group with a communality of interest. There is no governance of that community although there are those who act as (self appointed) spokesmen/women or those whose opinions and learning are valued by others.

As atheists we share a lack of something. My atheism evolved from my desire for independent thought and enlightenment.

We spend so little time grouping for mutual support. We sleep in on Sunday. Life is good.

First, I think it's easier for white, straight, educated, relatively affluent males to self identify as atheists. As atheism becomes more normalized, that will change.

Secondly, I do think that groups who are primarily identified as non-believers will begin to organize around causes as the number grow. There is a natural connection between the issues of social justice and civil liberties among some activist atheists and these causes, and the demographics bear that out.

yes they are mainly concerned with the Search for Extraterrestrials, but why aren't they talking more about Food Stamps.

The PGA has a problem, yes they are usually trying to promote golfing, but why aren't they speaking out about AIDS prevention.

(And BTW I regularly get alerts from the Council for Secular Humanism about Congressional action on the very issues the article claims are absent from Atheist organizations)

Perhaps I can put it more succinctly:
BULLSHIT!

Tell you what. Send Sikivu a message: https://twitter.com/intent/follow?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fposteverything%2Fwp%2F2014%2F06%2F16%2Fblacks-are-even-discriminated-against-by-atheists%2F&screen_name=sikivuhutch&tw_p=followbutton&variant=2.0&xd_token=9735c1176f20f8

right now i am leaning towards "why bother".

right now i am leaning towards "who cares".

#11

pro-active social activist base. Looking at their website, they also appear to have a strong and very well supported "African Americans for Humanism" group within their organization.

They look like an excellent example of what some organizations could consider doing to address some of the issues brought up in the article.

in general.

to not consider that atheists would organize mainly around the problems of religion in society and the individuals in those groups would have other outlets to address these other areas.

But my current bandwagon is that atheists and liberal/progressive non-atheists have a common enemy in the religious right. Most of the objections that atheist groups have about religion, at least in the US, are because of the religious right.

So there is an opportunity to fight together for the same secular causes.

that is very true.
There are intellectual differences with believers, but that's more about writing essays and debates.
Something like the recent SCOTUS decision on prayer at a town meeting, I think progressive believers mostly side with the atheists on this.

are critical for maintaining each other.

That is, separation is a vital part of permitting people to practice their religion freely.

Makes sense to me and I think there is a great deal of overlap in the two communities, with notable exceptions of course.

I think the Founders feared a State Religion and what that meant to people not of that faith (believers and non-believers)

Is showing. Please remember that DU is a public place.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. And they can't comprehend not being defined by a stance on a god belief. Atheism no more creates a "group" of people than those who don't believe in Santa Clause. Echoing your sentiment...would anyone say "People who don't believe in Santa have a problem"? Nope. It's not a defining characteristic. Interesting how fixated so many people are on religion. It's how they define themselves and other people. Sad.

It's like asking what a Chess Club is doing about air pollution.

Ok, but I don't make that assumption, because I try not to form collectivist identifications for individuals. (The heart of racism/classism, seeing people as monolithic groups with no exceptions)

One wonders who the 'commonly believed' belief-holders are, atheists, or the same fools who say there are no atheists in foxholes?

I can't force other people to believe certain things.


"But when we look to atheist and humanist organizations for solidarity on these issues, there is a staggering lack of interest. And though some mainstream atheist organizations have jumped on the “diversity” bandwagon, they haven’t seriously grappled with the issue. Simply trotting out atheists of color to speak about “diversity” at overwhelmingly white conferences doesn’t cut it. As Kim Veal of the Black Freethinkers network notes, this kind of tokenism exhibits a superficial interest in “minorities, but not in minority issues.”"

What the fuck is this ridiculous nonsense? Atheism isn't equivalent to Humanist Organizations. Humanist orgs can and do have belief systems. Mixing the two is bullshit.

"What should this look like? Take an issue that many white atheists care about – science education in schools. The number of black and Latino youth with access to quality science and math education is still abysmally low. Nonetheless, when it comes to educational equity in K-12 schools of color, atheist organizations have been MIA, ignoring the very race and class disparities that make STEM professions largely white male bastions in the first place."

That's because when I am involved in education reform issues I don't stop and identify myself as an Atheist. I identify myself as a progressive, and stand against robbing schools of money via privatization and vouchers, and a dozen other issues being used to systematically destroy and profitize public schools.

I don't show up to such fights as an atheist, because there's a relevant political tribe to identify with already in place.

I didn't have the energy to write that much.

But bullshit it is and bullshit it will be.

There are posts all over this board, yours included, where posters routinely link their self-identified atheism with all sorts of things: religious misogyny and homophobia; scientific evidence; separation of church and state; the invocation of reason and logic; and progressive values in general, among many other things.

Not a single one of those things have anything to do with atheism per se. Yet there they are, part and parcel of a particular atheist identity.

Here, when this woman, who clearly speaks from experience, points out the very real class, race and gender issues that exist in the same contexr

"religious misogyny and homophobia; scientific evidence; separation of church and state; the invocation of reason and logic"

"Not a single one of those things have anything to do with atheism per se."

My position as an atheist MOST CERTAINLY has something to do with each and every one of those items.

School vouchers? Mandatory testing/performance feedback on teachers? Common Core? Privatization? Charter schools?

THOSE have no overlap with my position as an atheist, as they are not issues influenced by religion in any way.


Homeschooling, MIGHT in some cases, overlap, because there are certainly people who homeschool to avoid some 'public school' content such as sex ed, etc. We might interface there, my position as an atheist might be relevant.

But not on any of the other items you listed. I'll spot you homeschooling, but none of those others.

"she is met with cries of "bullshit" and "trashing".

Her stone has hit its mark."

Her position IS bullshit. Atheism has nothing to do with the items she raised.

"My position as an atheist MOST CERTAINLY has something to do with each and every one of those items."

And so because those things that you consider have "something to do with" your atheism - which they do not unless you change its definition - are different from the race, class and gender issues that this woman articulates, which has "something to do with" her atheism, you call it bullshit.

"Her position IS bullshit. Atheism has nothing to do with the items she raised."

Caps will not mask the privilege from which those words emerged.

Atheism tells me nothing about selecting between left/center/right political ideology. Nothing at all. Atheists tend to be left of center, but that's only a trend. It isn't an attribute of atheism.

What does atheism tell me about school vouchers? Nothing. Not a damn thing.
What does atheism tell me about standardized testing schools, and withholding funds if they don't meet a certain bar? Nothing. Nothing at all.

But those two issues are massively impactful to schools, particularly for at-risk economic areas, so by extension massively impactful to minorities, as she highlighted.

Atheism sure does tell me something about whether the school should be proselytizing to students. It applies to the religion/sans religion dichotomy. But that's as far as it goes. I can't stretch it to cover left/right political issues. It is silent on that subject. (excepting issues where believers attempt to implement political ideology as a mask over some BS religious dicta.)


None of those issues have to do with her lack of religious belief. They DO have a lot to do with political ideology, however. And does so in a manner I already form ranks with her on.

But I won't pretend I'm involved in that issue for the sake of my non-belief in god/s. I don't. Has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It has EVERYTHING to do with my political bent. I'm not going to tell her, 'hey, I'm an atheist and I'm here to help because that's relevant.'. It isn't. Not to that issue.

It's relevant only because starving schools or turning them into profit centers, or drowning the department of education in a bathtub, are incredibly relevant political issues, given my political ideology.

"religious misogyny and homophobia"

For that, I come armed as an atheist. Drop the word 'religion', and I come armed as a human, specifically, one of a particular politically ideological bent. (Far left)


People who pretend to religious misogyny and homophobia, are uninteresting because they cannot be distinguished from non-pretenders. (Unless one of them admits it or something.)

"So, in a nation where African Americans and whites are still separate and decidedly unequal, black atheists are forced to form their own organizations, often getting pushback from some whites about creating “separatist” groups. Ultimately, if people of color don’t see atheists and humanists stepping up on issues that directly affect their communities, atheists proselytizing about the evils of organized religion will be dismissed as empty paternalism."

If that's true, that's a huge problem. If it's true, it's true somewhere else in the country, which is possible, because racial, political, and religious climates vary considerably around the country, and I can't speak much toward that outside where I live.

But the second half is a total non-sequitur. I'm already 'stepping up on those issues', but she won't see it because I'm not going to stop in the middle of that sort of political debate and bellow 'BY THE WAY, I'M AN ATHEIST'.

We're already in the same club, shoulder to shoulder, aligned on the same issue. Atheism/Theism is irrelevant in that context.

They largely ignore the fact that black nonbelievers face a racial and gender divide precipitated by rollbacks on affirmative action, voting rights, affordable housing, reproductive rights, education and job opportunities.

What she is saying is that those priorities have been given less attention in comparison to other social issues that atheist groups engage in. She is also saying that it is due to the demographics of self-identified atheists.

It's because atheism has nothing to contribute to those issues.


I cannot justify my position on any of those political issues, by way of saying 'i'm an atheist'. It would tell the other person NOTHING about my position. (Unless you try to statistically guess my political bent based on my lack of religion, which is somewhat more likely to be left of center.)

Why don't you support school vouchers? Because god doesn't exist.

INVALID PAGE FAULT


Why don't you support school vouchers? Because vouchers drain money from public schools, particularly those that need MORE resources, not fewer.

Hey, that actually works.


Do you understand?

Religious homophobia can be arrived at without religion?

That's a neat trick, do tell.

If some group wants the control that misogyny brings, they'll use religion, along with sexism, in a flash to achieve that. Whether they believe in a god or not.

As to church-state separation, some group may desire the superficial unity that a national religion brings. Surely you don't think Rome had no atheist emperors.

If someone is making a religious case for, getting back to homophobia, I can certainly argue against that on sold ground wearing my atheist hat. That gives me ammo.

But I can't tell the difference between the Pope saying it's a sin, and some douchebag wearing religion as a mask, saying it's a sin. To the non-religious observer, that's like trying to distinguish between inertia and gravity without an external reference point. They are, or amount to, the same thing.

Now, if someone is just a douchebag with no religious overtones, fake or otherwise, and is also a homophobe, then I don't need my atheist hat at all to go after them, do I? It's not even part of the conversation. There is no point tacking on 'This message brought to you by Atheism(TM)' after I dismantle their position on relevant grounds such as civil rights, or just basic human decency. You don't use armor piercing ammo on unarmored targets, and vice versa. The result is unsatisfactory.


Unless my opponent is explicitly wearing a religious hat/couching their argument in religious cover/purpose/dogma/doctrine, then the fact that I am an atheist doesn't come into the picture in any relevant capacity.

It would be like the difference between waving a silver crucifix at a pop culture vampire, and waving a silver crucifix at some dude that happens to be an asshole. One of them is not going to produce the desired result.

Saying 'I'm an atheist' when going after them, is similarly ineffective. Wrong tool for the job.

Trashing!

is that I am not going to be shamed or insulted into allowing people to misrepresent atheism.

On what page of the Big Book of the Ever Questioning Atheist says one word on race? What does it say on anything other than lacking belief in god?

If you care about black representation in the various atheists groups, advocating for social change to allow for more African Americans to come out as atheists or make atheism more acceptable in the African American community, etc then you should do it by making it about those things rather than trying to link atheism to a race problem.

The author in her passion for encouraging change and fixing the race imbalance in atheist groups has just smeared all of us regardless of our actual positions and given ammo to the anti-atheist bigots and ideologues. If she wants to make change, the first thing she can rewrite her article to do away with the misrepresentation of her own group.

Better tell PZ so he can kick her off FtB.

I am sure he will fall over himself if you bring it up to him. You have such a good track record with the non-believers here.

I think I am probably the only one left who will even engage with you.

This one's much better.

You replace a song by an African American with a song by a group of white guys? I think you might have a race problem!!!

But, I will over look that this time. If we are going to go the Beatles route, might as well start a club band! Lonely Heart's club band!

I can do this for as long as you can! Because:

Working in our local capital around 1992, I often got on the Congress bus, though. And often a lot of black people sitting in the back.

I was a little offended: I walked back, sat down, and talked to one or two: "what's up with this? After almost 30 years of civil rights, we've still got black people sitting in the back of the bus?"

But they told me that they just liked to hang out together.

There's a lot of self-exclusion in the minority community. And that is partly responsible for their isolation - in religion, and poverty. For For that reason though, I've always made clear: I'm an "Integrationist." That means breaking down the barriers; and working together. To integrate all subcultures together.

When we do that, I think their isolation in religion, and poverty, might well end.

By the way? There may be a rational link between being heavily religious, and being poor: when you are told to give up on "reason," and the "mind," and just blindly follow on the basis of "faith," without trying to see a rational basis in things, you are discouraged from developing a rational mind. And finally of course, irrational people don't do well in the workplace.

In my experience by the way? Minority members that were more aggressively integrated, did far, far better in school. And in getting good jobs.

It's their fault.

I thought that was clear in the emphasis on "integration."

Of course Integration logically involves the anglo culture being willing to integrate minorities into itself.

And you are an "integrationist"?

I don't think I've heard anything like this for a very, very long time. And I certainly haven't heard that here.

There is a correlation between religiosity and poverty and it has nothing to do with people being told to give up on "reason" and the "mind". It has to do with hopelessness and the inability to get out of desperate situations. It's about hope and making sense of how the world is working or not working.

And if I am reading this correctly, what you are saying is this. Religious people are irrational and that's why they don't do well in the workplace and that is why they are poor.

You have this entirely backwards, and, frankly, you post comes across as deeply racist.

I've mentioned self-exclusion; it's an element of every distinct culture or subculture.

But I've clearly said that I'm interested in breaking that down. In the name of Integration.

For which I have worked all my life.

What on earth are you saying here?

In any case, my major point is probably this: it is claimed by our highly incendiary author, that Christianity was the major voice in minority rights. While I would partially agree, I'd also note that however, strangely, even after 50 years of talk, by a largely Christian nation, they still have problems.

So how can you say that Christianity really helped?

negates the role of the church in the civil rights movement?

Maybe the incendiary author is just talking that exclusive black talk you describe and you can't really understand what he is saying.

Do women have some kind of exclusive talk that keeps them down too?

Integration means that "they" need to be more like "us" so they can fit in and not be poor or marginalized.

That's integration.

that some Miocene under-the-bridge life form thinks that we people of color can "easily learn" rationality.

And the acquisition of Reason was by no means automatic, even for the west; western cultures fought for the clarification and development of Reason and Logic, over thousands of years (c. 300 BC to the present).

It is therefore not patronizing to suggest that minority cultures that score exceedingly low on SAT tests, could have their scores greatly increased; if Logic and Reason were actively taught to them at childhood. Rather than magical thinking; pray-and-get miracles.

Reason is an acquisition, a struggle, for ALL of us. For people to learn it, it always must be taught. For all of us.

And yet clearly it is not being taught as well as it should be in many minority populations.

And the main reason for that, is Religion.

By the way? Calling someone "Miocene" is a gross and foolish insult. Simply using it, condemns the speaker. With her own language. It is simple name-calling. Not logic or reason.

Okasha? Never in my life have I seen a person more clearly condemning herself. By her very insults directed at others.

the community as it is now has the typical sexism and racism problem. Jut because both women and POC's are claiming their space in the atheism dialogue. a space that is mostly occupied by rich able boddied old white men.

Oh, another completely, mind numbingly bullshit article trying to demonize atheists. All these articles, and many being posted by people who readily identify with misogynist, homophobic belief systems! The hypocrisy is a bit much.

An accomplished woman of color, who is an atheist, writes an article pointing out the gender, race and class disparities exhibited by many atheists.

An excerpt of that article is posted on Democratic Underground.

You then react by calling it a "completely, mind numbingly bullshit article".

You then accuse the poster, me, of "trying to demonize atheists."

And finally, you call that same person, me, a person who will "readily identify with misogynist, homophobic belief systems!" Exclamation point yours.

Tell me, Mellow, through what warped thought process do you go from a critique of class, race and gender privilege, which I suspect you readily identify with, to yet another passive-aggressive veiled accusation of bigotry?

"The hypocrisy is a bit much." That's wrong. The stupidity is a bit much.

"Burn the heretic" yawp directed at an atheist who dares to criticize other atheists. Not productive unless the complainers actually want to reinforce the perception that atheists are overwhelmingly white, male and highly privileged.

Atheists generally trend white, male and privileged in the US, and it's not an "atheism" problem. It's a societal problem.

It's a country club problem.

It reflects racial problems and religious problems in the US that atheists here trend white, male, and wealthy. It's not caused by atheism, and it's not a problem for atheism.

to lead you out of the squalor of your gated communities and into the real world inhabited by the 99%. Hallelujah!

You're rude and a bully.

Show everyone how much of a bully you can be.

to the little brown girl....

Especially on an internet discussion board.

NT

the Republican Party has some great role models.

Or, stop being rude.

and read your post to its proper audience.

That's rude and bullying behavior. You don't even need a mirror, you can just look at your own posts.

Goodnight.

Anyone who says "atheism has a race problem" fundamentally doesn't understand what atheism is, and in fact, plays into a well-worn caricature that has been pushed by conservative theists for a long time. That atheism is somehow a belief system, or even an organization. That's part of the process of demonization, and an important one.

There wasn't one description of "white atheists" the author used in the article that couldn't have been simply replaced with "white people" and hold true. In fact, more true, as white atheists tend to be much more progressive on the issues the author was discussing. So I'm wondering what race problem atheism has? The author sure doesn't explain.

The author does explain that if various specific organizations want to proselytize atheism, they should show they care about black issues to gain converts. Well, which specific organization has that as their goal? To proselytize atheism? And if there are some, then that's a problem with those specific groups, not "atheism". Such lazy, careless use of an already heavily demonized and caricatured word is irresponsible.

The author's complaint that many organizations focus on separation of church and state and not issues in the black community comes across as arrogant and presumptuous. Just like it would be if an atheist complained that the NACCP doesn't concentrate enough on the separation of church and state. There is a lot of of religious privilege in this country, and having organizations that focus specifically on addressing that issue is no more wrong than groups that focus on racial disparity and white privilege. Maybe she'll get mad that LGBT groups focus on LGBT discrimination and issues next?

Black atheists have to form their own group for the same reason they have to form their own churches and many other organizations. Racial disparity and privilege, history and segregation. Asking "atheism" to address that is non-sensical. Atheism doesn't address that. Various progressive ideologies strive to.

As a progressive, I want all the issues the author talks about addressed as well, and if I had my way, every secular, Hispanic, LGBT, Asian, etc. organization would. But it has nothing to do with atheism.

The fact that you call the author "an accomplished woman of color" comes across as creepy paternalism. I don't really care what your opinion of the author is, maybe you think she's very articulate as well, but it's noticeable how you use it as a point.

The reason there aren't more black atheists isn't "atheism". It's a lot of things. It's white privilege, racist history, racial bigotry and discrimination, segregation, religious privilege that makes it tougher for those with less overall privilege to give up religion, a poor social safety net, a tax system that favors religion, etc. etc. I wish more people understood that, atheist or not, Asian, white or Hispanic. This author misses the point by saying this is a problem for atheism. How? She actually contributes to more misunderstanding of atheism. Does atheism say that we should convert all theists? Then it may be a problem of how to reach out to the black community, but it doesn't.

The author pointed out disparities among class, race, etc., then says it's a problem for atheism? Atheism isn't an ideology, it's not a belief system. It is just a lack of belief on one single issue. Trying to redefine atheism as an ideology that supports one's own worldview is arrogant and presumptuous, not to mention completely wrong. Conservative theists have portrayed atheism as an ideology long enough. This author plays right into their hands.

Sikivu Hutchinson said it. I'll take her word for it over yours.

What follows in your post is no more that apologetics for the status quo that she's resisting.

I'll just add one more point.

Maybe it's tough to defend a position that doesn't even define atheism correctly.

Heck, her implication that atheism is about converting theists is straight up what conservatives have been saying about atheism for years.

But you left out "how", you know, you didn't make a point. If stating that something is wrong without saying why or how is a discussion for you, I wonder what you get out of them.

Specifically,

Saying white atheists have different experiences from black atheists doesn't show atheism has a race problem.

I agree with everything else you said.

Unless atheism is defined as something it is not, it makes no sense to say it has a race problem.

It's an important distinction to make. Even activist atheist organizations isn't specific enough.

Especially as, at the end, she implies that atheists should show they care about black issues simply as a way to more easily "convert" them. That's really troubling to me, and it does play into how many conservatives portray atheism, as some sort of belief system out to damn the souls of believers.

Now I've read that article several times and don't see where she states or implies that "that atheists should show they care about black issues simply as a way to more easily 'convert' them."

She does talk about having solidarity on African American issues but that's not conversion.

Perhaps you're making an inference from this:

On black issues, is that black people will more likely agree with their message that organized religion is evil.

Except very few atheists want to "proselytize" about the evil of organized religion, except in the minds of conservatives. It feeds a stereotype. And it makes any support atheists give black communities as nothing more than an attempt to "spread the gospel". It sends all the wrong messages.

I've read that over a half dozen times now, and it still adds up to "separate but equal."

Jayzus!

they don't understand why blacks feel forced to form their own group. It really upsets them, seems like separate but equal all over again. Heck, it upsets conservatives in general that there is a BET network.

the teeny little fact that I was quoting you.