S.A.M. said:
Whats the ratio of atheists designing weapons of mass destruction and free trade policies that bankrupt poor nations.
Hard to say. I'm not aware of any great study. However, I would ask you to consider two stereotypes in the United States. One is, obviously, the greedy Jew. I don't know how many Jewish people served on the boards of what companies. There might be a study out there, but since there are, generally, very few legitimate reasons for such an inquiry, it would be an entertaining question, at least, as to the credibility of such an examination.
The other stereotype is called "Old Money". This includes, for instance, the Kennedys and Bushes. Just as an example. And while some of these are Catholics, there is an acronym, widely regarded as as pejorative, that describes the others: "WASP", or White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. We also call them—derisively, of course—bluebloods, after King George III.
And WASPs have money in everything. An old joke about WASPs goes,
What do you call a WASP with a social conscience?
A disgrace to the family.
Again, as with Jews, the basis for a study examining how many WASPs are in what industries is at least a little problematic. Perhaps there are good numbers out there, but the only reason I can think of to worry about whether the folks on these companies' boards are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or whatever, is because someone has made the typical vanilla assertion that religion does not harm society, and atheism is what we really need to fear.
You and I know well, from listening to people rip on the whole of Islam through this most recent chapter of conflict and strife, that these arguments tend to overlook the socioeconomic factors involved in crime and strife in order to lodge a direct indictment against various identities. But it
is true that religion provides a convenient mask for those currents. It is far easier to offend that God is with us and against them than it is to detail a thirty-minute explanation of how the cost of manufacturing shoes and underwear in Asia is related to strife in Africa or the Middle East. Sound bites, as you well know, tend to be more effective mobilizers than rational argument.
Also women are more religious than men. Are women more likely to commit crimes? More likely to be in prison?
Look, I know certain irrationality about this site can be exceptionally irritating, but I'm pretty damn sure you're smarter than that. Crime has only recently begun its move toward equal-opportunity empowerment. Which is why more women are more frequently prostitutes than gang leaders. Give them something else to do, and they might well do it.
On a slightly more abstract note, I would encourage you to bear in mind that many of our neighbors around this site have become accustomed to making simplistic arguments specifically
because they are responding to religious arguments. That shouldn't be taken as a blanket statement about religious people, but I have to admit that over the years, I've only had a few religious discussions that tested my comprehension. Consider, for instance, the simplicity of the topic post. "
Athiests [sic]
are usually the people that have no respect for others, they curse, they do drugs......athiests." The best counterargument I can think of would be to hang out with Norsefire, smoke our body weights in marijuana or hashish, and watch hours of cartoons and anime.
South Park,
Venture Brothers,
.hack//Sign,
Cowboy Bebop, &c. ad nauseam. Maybe drag him out to a Floater concert, or Pearl Jam, Radiohead ... if only Phish was still touring together.
I think one of the things that makes religious people so frightened of atheism is that there is often a cynicism about atheists, and to be honest I have a hard time objecting to it. After all, atheists do not come about under the same conditions as religious folks. Atheism emerges in a generally-hostile environment, and despite the best efforts of religious people to extinguish it. Furthermore, the word itself refers to a lack; religious people tend to assume that a common label like atheism means atheists have common beliefs. Hell, I couldn't get our atheists to help themselves and explain the foundations of their moral and ethical structures; they're that determined to maintain a wall of separation between the label of atheism and the truth of who and what they are. And this behavior is, in fact, quite common for those who have existed under extensive and persistent oppression and hostility.
The paradox, of course, is that in order for religious people to bridge that part of the gap that is their responsibility, they must be willing to view and treat their atheist neighbors as human beings. As a general rule, they don't. And while it is well enough for many to point out that atheists make the same mistake with theists, I always find myself wondering how that notion justifies the conduct of the empowered majority. After all, the idea that the people in charge are somehow oppressed, victimized, or deprived is somewhat absurd.
Okay,
deprived, maybe. But aiding and abetting what oppresses one—like Larry Craig or Richard Curtis, for instance—does not earn a person substantial sympathy from their oppressed fellows in the community.
