Saturday, February 24, 2007

Arthur Jensen, evil: Richard Dawkins, naughty

Since 1972, the General Social Survey has asked almost 30,000 Americans if a person who is against church and religion should be allowed to speak in public. In 1972, it was 66.6%, and by 2004--the most recent year available--it was up to 77.5%. It's an encouraging trend, but I'm not sure that it's a reflection of a growing appreciation of free speech as a general principle. Over the years, people have also been asked if a racist should be allowed to speak, and the number has not budged from the 62.0% observed 35 years ago. So it looks like this is simply a matter of more people being comfortable with anti-religion. These numbers also tell us that racism has become more of a taboo than making statements against religion. This is why Arthur Jensen is much more a villain than Richard Dawkins.


  1. I don't think it's a fair comparison. While I'm personally for free speech for all, racism and "anti-religionism" are not analogous. Racism is against people while anti-religionism is against an idea. Although I'm sure Jensen doesn't advocate for violence against blacks, the word "racist" conjures up someone who does. "Anti-religionist" does not bring up an image of someone shouting, "Death to Christians!"

  2. Anonymous6:40 AM

    Give it time, though.


What's the profile of a person who believes astrology is scientific? (Answer: the exact opposite of me)

Clearly, anyone who believes that astrology is scientific doesn't understand what science is, but how common is this belief, and what...