Sunday, April 19, 2009 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

The Silent Minority

by Cenk Uygur

Thanks to Sarah for the links.
Reposted from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-silent-minority_b_173354.html

There is a minority group in America that is a bigger percentage of the country than blacks or Hispanics. But they are often ignored or derided in public. Almost no politician would ever admit to being one. And they are given no voice in the public arena.

They are the non-religious. A new comprehensive study by The Program on Public Values at Trinity College shows that this group is now a whopping 15% of the country. Mormons by comparison are a puny 1.4% of the population, and people can't shut up about the Mormons. The Senate Majority Leader is a Mormon, one of the top Republican presidential candidates was Mormon and even HBO has a whole show devoted to them.

Even though the non-religious are more than ten times larger, other than Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), not one member of Congress would even admit to being in the dreaded minority of non-believers. They are almost never accounted for in any political discussion of religion in the country. The devout view them as amoral at best and destined for eternal damnation at worst. Yet, this kind of abuse and scorn is widely accepted and expected.

And, if God forbid, they should ever fight back and forcefully present their opinions, they are often considered rude and offensive.

I've always been amused at the idea that a religious person can say that an atheist will burn in hell as a result of their beliefs, and that is not considered offensive; but if an atheist says that believing in God makes no sense, that is considered deeply offensive. One person is charging the other with faulty logic; the other is charging them with a base immorality that warrants eternal torture. How is the former even vaguely more insulting than the latter?

I have a confession - I am in that 15%! Gasp, shriek. I, too, am in the unspeakable minority. The minority that is not silent by choice but by decision of the people in power. They say we don't merit a seat at the table. That our views are offensive to the majority, so they cannot be countenanced in polite company, or more importantly, on the Sunday morning talk shows.

But we shall be silent no more! Rise up, my non-religious brothers and sisters. Agnostics, atheists, deists and the religiously indifferent can all join hands, stand up and be counted. Time for the silent minority to roar!

Or in lieu of that, can someone please just recognize that we exist, that we are a legitimate force in American discourse and politics? And for the love of God, stop ignoring us.

YouTube of the above from The Young Turks.com

Posted: Sunday, April 19, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 38 of 38 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #366541 by Caudimordax on April 19, 2009 at 9:34 am

"Time for the silent minority to roar!"

Hopefully without being "shrill."

Edit: But the fact that this piece appeared in the Huffington Post, that the pope is warning about "godlessness," that people are up in arms about the bus campaigns - all these things would have been unimaginable even 10 years ago. So progress is definitely being made!

Other Comments by Caudimordax

2. Comment #366543 by crusader234 on April 19, 2009 at 9:39 am

Other Comments by crusader234

3. Comment #366545 by Just Plain Cliff on April 19, 2009 at 9:57 am

The problem with this article is that it fails to recognize that many times the only thing in common among atheists is their lack of belief in gods, which frequently fails to translate into similarity of political positions. While the author accurately nails the attitude of the multitude (especially in the States) towards atheists, he does not in any way suggest an effective organizational method for "herding cats," that is, how to organize 15% of the population into a political force when in many instances, that 15% holds politically diverse views.

Other Comments by Just Plain Cliff

4. Comment #366557 by Stafford Gordon on April 19, 2009 at 10:16 am

The percentage argument is a bit tenuous I think; It doesn't follow that the minority or majority are wrong or right about something just because they are a minority or majority; sometimes a tiny minority are in fact correct about something; simply because they have the knowledge about a given matter and the majority do not.

Witness, the number of Americans who are young earthers. They are wrong but they are in the majority I'm led to believe.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

5. Comment #366562 by Auraboy on April 19, 2009 at 10:29 am

I don't think anybody would ever say that the entire minority of anything agrees across all areas - it's hardly like there's one well organised Christian agenda, they mostly seem to dislike each others sects across a broad range of policy etc.

The point is simply that given the statistics surely fair representation should allow an atheist caucus of some kind to develop and hold positions of power openly in the U.S? Of course, there probably already is a non-religious segment in power but none can openly admit to it anymore.

This hasn't always been the case, but the atmosphere over the past sixty years or so has made it extremely difficult.

Since Obama was more or less raised as an atheist and didn't seem to openly declare his Christianity until quite late in life, I think there's hope that this atmosphere might change somewhat. I still think the U.S will have an openly gay President before an openly non-religious one but who knows? I never thought I'd see a non-white President until much later in my lifetime so there's room for optimism.

Other Comments by Auraboy

6. Comment #366567 by Pilot22A on April 19, 2009 at 10:47 am

No, let's not "roar."

Let's just ignore the obscenities of religion and not make theists any more important than they already think they are.

If we ignore religion, in time it will fade away and be viewed as non-relevant as it is now.

Other Comments by Pilot22A

7. Comment #366568 by paceetrate on April 19, 2009 at 10:53 am

Pilot22A, closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending the problem doesn't exist will NOT make it go away.

Other Comments by paceetrate

8. Comment #366573 by AllanW on April 19, 2009 at 11:07 am

Good article but wimpy at the end ('Please don't ignore us!'). Pah. Demand attention. No minority got their voice heard or their lobby listened to by asking for it; demonstrate that you have voting power and ALL politicians will listen.

But this then begs the question that JustPlainCliff asked; how do you organise a herd of cats whose only thing in common is their lack of religion? Easy; mobilise to defeat acts, legislation and mores of society that are solely beneficial to the religious. If the one thing that unites us is that we have no belief in God then the one political act we should all subscribe to is that which solely benefits the religious believer. Any suggestions? Faith schools? Churches tax exempt status?

Other Comments by AllanW

9. Comment #366577 by Roland_F on April 19, 2009 at 11:19 am

Just during the discussion in Germany about Bishop Mixa rants, the latest believe statistics were posted there.

For the US they state only atheist = 2%, agnostics = 4%, whereas in Germany the atheist and agnostics combined at 23% are more than the sure believers with 22%.
The biggest group in Germany are ‘no personal God but some higher force’ (deist, pantheist, New age, Buddhists ….) with 33%.

Here the numbers from this statistic:

Atheist : US 2% / UK 16% / FR 19% / GER 12%
Agnostic: US 4% / UK 14% / FR 16% / GER 11%
No God but higher force: US 11% / UK 20% / FR 14% / GER 33%
Sometimes I believe sometimes not: US 2% / UK 12% / FR 11% / GER 6%
I have doubt but I think I believe: US 10% / UK 13% / FR 14% / GER 15%
I know God exists and have no doubts: US 70% / UK 23% / FR 24% / GER 22%
Don’t know : 1 or 2% each country

The link (but text in German): http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-41482-5.html#backToArticle=618676

So in Europe it's the silent majority which is pushed around and have no voice (and does not even succedd with a buskampaign in Germany against powerfull extreemly wealthy churches)

Other Comments by Roland_F

10. Comment #366580 by Auraboy on April 19, 2009 at 11:24 am

Ah the good old UK, we never can make a bloody decision.

Other Comments by Auraboy

11. Comment #366583 by deejay64 on April 19, 2009 at 11:57 am

What needs to happen is an attitude shift similar to us here in Canada.I'd have to go dig to find exact numbers. But during our last federal election the religion of a candidate was one of the least important considerations to the electorate.

The public , and politicians , both have to start saying enough! policies on issues matter more than where I spend my Sunday mornings.

I think education is the only key to this attitude shift.

Other Comments by deejay64

12. Comment #366587 by Squigit on April 19, 2009 at 12:08 pm

We can band together in the political arena... most of us disagree with defining marriage as between a man and a woman, most of us don't want our children indoctrinated in school with creationist crap, etc...there is more than one thing that unites us...and I've actually said it on here before: sometimes it's the smallest group with the loudest voice so I think it's high time we, the non-religious, stood up and screamed!

Other Comments by Squigit

13. Comment #366605 by j.mills on April 19, 2009 at 1:04 pm

I don't want or expect atheists to be 'united'. Groups are united solely by their defining characteristic; whether it's women, the French, Lutherans, Labour MPs or bisexuals, there is no reason to suppose or desire that all individuals in a group will agree on anything other than what includes them in the group.

I dare say there are some amoral atheists; there are certainly plenty of amoral theists. What the article draws attention to is precisely that the label 'atheist' carries with it unjustified baggage that is applied to the whole group. Rather than changing the baggage to something better, the realistic position is to recognise and proclaim that there is no such baggage. It's the emperor's new baggage! :)

Other Comments by j.mills

14. Comment #366607 by decius on April 19, 2009 at 1:09 pm

Comment #366605 by j.mills

the realistic position is to recognise and proclaim that there is no such baggage.

Have you flown British Airways, recently?

Other Comments by decius

15. Comment #366611 by PabloDF on April 19, 2009 at 1:36 pm

Re #366583 by deejay64: Second that. It's recognition that's critical, not lobbying power. Recognition of the existence of atheists first of all, since many believers think we're just "angry God deniers" or Satanists or whatever; then recognition that atheists are individuals with wildly differing views and there's no "atheist agenda". Instead of "stop ignoring us" the author should say more rightly "accept that we're among you".

Other Comments by PabloDF

16. Comment #366612 by EvidenceOnly on April 19, 2009 at 1:38 pm

There is only science and superstition. The first is supported by mountains of verifiable and testable evidence and the latter by none whatsoever.

Faith is the name people give to their own superstition and superstition is what they call other people's faith.

Many/most faith-nuts go so far as to claim that non-believing is also a belief system.

You should all watch the wonderful YouTube clips from NotStampCollector.

In one of these he compares claiming that not believing in any god is a religion to saying that a TV turned off is also a TV channel.

We need to fight all forms of superstition and the most dangerous subset is religion. However, all superstition is breeding grounds for the spread of nonsense.

We should all be asuperstitionists. I know it is a mouthful but it may get the point across clearer and less treathening than atheist.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

17. Comment #366618 by aliamjadrizvi on April 19, 2009 at 2:15 pm

"I've always been amused at the idea that a religious person can say that an atheist will burn in hell as a result of their beliefs, and that is not considered offensive; but if an atheist says that believing in God makes no sense, that is considered deeply offensive. One person is charging the other with faulty logic; the other is charging them with a base immorality that warrants eternal torture. How is the former even vaguely more insulting than the latter?"

I think this is a very strong response to those who claim to be "offended" at our criticism of religion.

I made the exact same point in my article at The Huffington Post on Toronto's Atheist Bus Campaign in February: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/the-atheist-bus-campaign_b_162844.html

It would be good to see more people bringing up the point that religious faith is more violently discriminatory against non-believers than the other way around. We should be asking more often, "Who should REALLY be offended?"

Other Comments by aliamjadrizvi

18. Comment #366633 by NewEnglandBob on April 19, 2009 at 2:59 pm

I just posted a question about finding a study in another thread and here it is.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

19. Comment #366670 by zeerust2000 on April 19, 2009 at 4:00 pm

I've always been amused at the idea that a religious person can say that an atheist will burn in hell as a result of their beliefs, and that is not considered offensive; but if an atheist says that believing in God makes no sense, that is considered deeply offensive. One person is charging the other with faulty logic; the other is charging them with a base immorality that warrants eternal torture. How is the former even vaguely more insulting than the latter?

Very nicely put. It's a pity it's a bit too long for a t-shirt.

Other Comments by zeerust2000

20. Comment #366734 by Eshto on April 19, 2009 at 7:48 pm

Witness, the number of Americans who are young earthers. They are wrong but they are in the majority I'm led to believe.

Majority? I think not.

Slightly less than half, thank you very much.

Other Comments by Eshto

21. Comment #366739 by Sabio on April 19, 2009 at 8:03 pm

I agree with Just Plain Cliff. Too many atheist divide us by assuming we all have the same political opinions. Also, theists and atheists alike make all sorts of cognitive mistakes, it is the sanctifying of the mistakes that is to be fought. For we all error -- in every way !

Other Comments by Sabio

22. Comment #366743 by Ed-words on April 19, 2009 at 8:25 pm

15% is a low estimate.

Other Comments by Ed-words

23. Comment #366770 by Lord Osis on April 19, 2009 at 11:21 pm

"But we shall be silent no more! Rise up, my non-religious brothers and sisters. Agnostics, atheists, deists and the religiously indifferent can all join hands, stand up and be counted. Time for the silent minority to roar!"

ROAR!!

Sounds like a martyrs speech. A tyrant might be better

Other Comments by Lord Osis

24. Comment #366780 by andersemil on April 20, 2009 at 1:16 am

I think that Obama is a very big step on the way for new and better things to come in the US. The very fact that people were unsure what his religious views were during the election was heartwarming to me, it should have no influence on his candidacy. And the fact that he for one acknowledges the non-believers of the population is another great score. 53% of Danish people may pray to a "higher power" as indicated by a recent poll, and our constitution may still read that Denmark is a christian nation, but it is unthinkable that a candidate of any kind would mention his/her religion as an opportunity to gain support, in fact it would most likely damage their candidacy.

Other Comments by andersemil

25. Comment #366783 by andersemil on April 20, 2009 at 1:22 am

To be fair, I have to add that the poll actually read that only 8% said they pray often, 13% pray "now-and-then", 32% do it on rare occasions (most likely when they're in deep s...!)

Other Comments by andersemil

26. Comment #366786 by Greyed on April 20, 2009 at 1:32 am

@ 3. Comment #366545 by Just Plain Cliff on April 19, 2009 at 9:57 am
"The problem with this article is that it fails to recognize that many times the only thing in common among atheists is their lack of belief in gods, which frequently fails to translate into similarity of political positions."

This is the answer. I seem to be a rare breed. An Atheist who is also a Libertarian. In my recent viewings of Youtube Atheist videos, discussions here and elsewhere I find that most of the vocal Atheists, so far, are far further to the left than I am. In the US the religious affiliation of a candidate really doesn't enter into my voting choice. The reason being is simple, we do have the separation of church and state here and one that the courts generally do uphold (witness Kitzmiller vs. Dover). However the constant hammering of the far left on rights which should be equally protected present a far larger immediate threat to me. The chances of the US becoming a theocracy any time soon is pretty slim. The chances the Second, Sixth, and Tenth amendments being circumvented is a far greater immediate threat. That means if I want to keep those in place I have to vote for politicians who actually have read the constitution and hold dear their oath to defend it vs. having skimmed it and see it as an impediment to their social agenda.

Other Comments by Greyed

27. Comment #366790 by mira on April 20, 2009 at 1:40 am

15% means that every 6,666...th person in the US doesn't believe in god and if under 25y it's more than 20% which means every 5th or 4th person. Of-course that's mathematical average and the numbers vary from community to community but still it is a LOT!

Other Comments by mira

28. Comment #366791 by hungarianelephant on April 20, 2009 at 1:50 am

Greyed - How is the Sixth Amendment likely to be circumvented?

You may enjoy this: http://abajournal.com/magazine/left_turn_permitted/

I particularly liked this extraordinary, unselfconscious statement:

"We had seen a departure by strict constructionists, who promoted expanded government with little accountability, excessive assertions of presidential authority, and a perverse doctrine of equal protection," explains Goodwin Liu, chair of the ACS and an associate dean at the University of California at Berkeley’s Boalt Hall. "We believe there’s room for refashioning the legal culture to meet contemporary challenges. The Constitution is meant to be a simple and spare document that adapts to the many changes the country would confront."

Yup. That's dead easy if you give yourself licence to say that the words written down don't mean what they say. Rather than - y'know - amending them in a constitutional manner. And there's me thinking that that was the job of the Bush administration.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

29. Comment #366807 by Roger Stanyard on April 20, 2009 at 3:05 am

Greyed says

This is the answer. I seem to be a rare breed. An Atheist who is also a Libertarian. In my recent viewings of Youtube Atheist videos, discussions here and elsewhere I find that most of the vocal Atheists, so far, are far further to the left than I am.

I don't understand what you are saying at all. The vast majority of Americans are to the right of the political spectrum. Indeed, very few of the people in this forum are noticeable to the left by international standards. I've come across a couple or so who are self-declared Marxists but they are very few and far between.

I suspect that the vast majority here would not in their wildest dreams consider the Democrats in the USA to be left wing. They are almost universally regarded as right of centre.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

30. Comment #366821 by keddaw on April 20, 2009 at 4:05 am

I have no problem with religious people telling me I will burn in hell in the afterlife, as long as they wait until I am there before telling me.

Other Comments by keddaw

31. Comment #366830 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on April 20, 2009 at 5:23 am

Roger Stanyard>

I've a feeling Greyed's perspective on right-left politics was based solely on the American standard for them, rather than a global one. I'm an American who spent a good while in UK, but I'll wager that if I hadn't,I might consider the Democratic party to be left of centre as well. If you've only (or mostly) paid attention to American media, that's the only perception you'd have.

Other Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher

32. Comment #366959 by Greyed on April 20, 2009 at 9:21 am

@ 31. Comment #366791 by hungarianelephant on April 20, 2009 at 1:50 am
"Greyed - How is the Sixth Amendment likely to be circumvented?"

Good catch, I meant the 4th. Apparently I have dyslexia when it comes to Roman numerals. And, to be honest, it already has been circumvented. Twice, in fact.

@32. Comment #366807 by Roger Stanyard on April 20, 2009 at 3:05 am
@34. Comment #366830 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on April 20, 2009 at 5:23 am

(re: my political perspective)

Actually, I meant what I said. Note three things. First, I never qualified that it was American only. Second, I said in my experience on this forum and youtube Atheist videos and third that I was comparing the above (both American and European) to MYSELF. I did not say they were far to the left. I said they were far to the left OF ME.

Which is to say in the traditional left/right spectrum (wildly outdated, btw) I place myself far right of middle.

Other Comments by Greyed

33. Comment #366967 by TCM on April 20, 2009 at 9:35 am

You're a Libertarian; everybody is further to the left than you :p.

Other Comments by TCM

34. Comment #366988 by zengardener on April 20, 2009 at 10:08 am

I feel a certain kinship with Greyed.
On many subjects I know we would disagree, and one would say that I am to the left. on Many others, I know that we would be in total agreement. The whole left/right divide has always been confusing to me. I feel like a socialist/libertarian sometimes. That is why I like the idea of coming together on specific issues that are to be voted on.
One point. I feel that (according to the polls) on this site, most would favor eliminating a churches tax free status. A libertarian may call for an elimination of taxes. We agree on the fairness of the issue, but we would go in the opposite directions.

Other Comments by zengardener

35. Comment #367166 by paulsteer on April 20, 2009 at 3:01 pm

I guess one of the problems would be defining what an 'Atheist issue' would be. The gradual but complete removal of Religious privilege from politics could perhaps count, but then you would be looking at the Atheist 15% in comparison to the combined-religious 85%. The same, to an extent, with Abortion Rights and Gay Rights.

In the same way as 'non-Coal Miners' probably wouldn't be a designated group, Atheists represent a kind of non-category. Atheists will have a diverse set of voting directions for most topics, rather than a pre-determined vote by proxy of being in a belief group. If a significantly large and organised group of anti-speed-camera-ists were known, I guess they would be identified as a minority worth noting during relevant elections, if the speed camera policy could swing the outcome.

To me, and I suspect most Atheists, the most important voting criteria are not exclusive or pertinent to Atheists and therefore not likely to greatly affect my decision. If one party were trying to push through a particularly religi-centric policy, that would probably change, and if one party were to push for removal of religious privilege, for example, they would certainly get my attention!

When Atheists exceed 50%, I'm sure Atheist-friendly policies will start popping up all over... Fingers crossed.

Other Comments by paulsteer

36. Comment #367306 by Greyed on April 20, 2009 at 10:11 pm

@36. Comment #366967 by TCM on April 20, 2009 at 9:35 am

"You're a Libertarian; everybody is further to the left than you :p. "

Except for the issues that everyone's to the right of me. Hence the left/right political map being outdated. ;)

Other Comments by Greyed

37. Comment #367517 by sundiver on April 21, 2009 at 9:59 am

If you move too far to the left or the right you wind up down at the bottom of the circle at totalitarianism. I don't much care for big gov't or big business, any organization that gets too big isn't agile enough to shift with the changing environment, vide GM or the old USSR, and maybe the USA. Then again, Texas' Gov is making secession noises. Maybe we oughta let 'em, average IQ would go up a bit...

Other Comments by sundiver

38. Comment #369328 by Greyed on April 23, 2009 at 9:05 pm

Meh, all this hate on Texas in this page and another.

http://www.atheist-experience.com/
http://www.youtube.com/aronra

Both from Texas, so lets lay off the stereotypes lest I start breaking out the many things wrong with France. :P

Other Comments by Greyed

Reload Comments | Back to Top