Wow! If you can't state your case simply, then you simply don't know enough. Albert Einstein

Personally, I don't believe I am responsible for other beings, humans included. They are their own independent entities with whom I interact on a regular basis and would even choose to assist / help when asked for and vice versa, but do so out of my free will and not an obligation. In fact, I'd say abstaining from being involved in another being's life feels to be a better option. This also strongly includes

1. Not shoving evolutionary superiority complex of humans down on every other specie by utilizing them as mere resources.
2. Take away another person's opportunity to develop their own ideas and opinions especially in childhood by giving them own version of answers than suggesting them to ask questions.

An elitist is, by definition, a person who thinks he or she is better than, above, and/or more deserving than others. There are few truly benevolent tyrants, if any.

Well, not being part of the elite it’s difficult to say. I feel somewhat responsible for others, due to my actions having ripples. Then as someone with a small disposable income, for spending it in a way that causes no harm and I giving very small percentage to charity.
But everyone has their own lived experience and make their best decisions based on that. I’m not sure if it’s a question of being elitist, or of simple upbringing and opportunity/ willingness to assist? but there is a lot more to unpack in the body of your text.

"There are some guys that need to be in an institution!"

Una looked at the room as it took in her remark
"You know the guys. They just HAVE to BE... in, an, IN-STI-TUTION
Her Armagh brogue spelling it out for those that did not get it.
"You know those guys who HAVE to join something. It doesn't matter what it is, they are all still the same type of guys...They HAVE to belong to something. Have someone telling them what to do... what to wear ...you feckin know....? . Because they feckin NEED it. There are loads of guys like that"
" Yeah, I know loads of guys like that. I grew up with them"
For sure I knew them.They were part of my tribe. I watched them go off, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and then I also watched them come back and flounder on the dry desert sands of self-dependency.

"So... if youse kick with the wrong foot. What the feck you gonna go? Its not just the Army! It's ALL the other feckin institutions that are bared to yer. Fire brigade, paramedics, prison service you feckin name it and... AND... if, ..If yer does manage to get IN !! ...Then yer OWN feckin tribe disowns yer fer joinin the fucking enemy... So where the fuck do you go? .........I will tell feckin yer.where you go.. You go to the guys that will that TELL you what to do. The guys with the guns,.. the direction, The ones that tell you that YOU belong there.
I used to see them, with their guns. The squaddies and all "the lads" they are both a load of cunts. Both as bad as each other and you want to know something? They are just the SAME feckin guys"

The "security" that you reference is a "need" that I believe is programmed into people. If they were not introduced to the fears of the religion in a time when they weren't able to critically analyze the information, that fear becomes part of their personality before they have the ability to analyze it using rational thought processes. Thus the "security" that there's a "need" is a false impression created by the programming of a generalized fear into them in the first place.

I think it's interesting that you think that intelligence has something to do with whether or not someone believes in a god and that not believing in a god implies some kind of "elite" status. It reeks with condescension. I see nothing that implies that not believing in a god has anything to do with a "higher" intelligence as opposed to a lack of desire to critically analyze the belief. There is no short term, obvious social benefit from analyzing the belief. In fact, doing so usually ostracizes a person from the community they were raised in.

The idea that there is some "responsibility" to those who choose to believe is also an intriguing concept. But given that it's based on the assumption that those with a belief are less intelligent (something not demonstrated in your OP) I would say that it is more a paternalistic assumption than an objective proposition. Not sure what an atheist's "responsibly" would be in this context. It sounds as if you're saying we must protect them from reality because they're not bright enough to accept it without a god and that's sounds kind of insulting.

So, you are saying that we all have "roles to play"--depending on our understanding, or ability to understand?

This, to me, sounds elitist--or, at the very least, has great potential to become elitist. And, the Caste system, which this sounds like, is elitist. We are all to accept our place, our role? Well, who is to determine our place, our role? Only ourselves? I don't think so.

Those at the "higher" levels will be making that determination--after all--they are the ones with the "better understanding," right?

You can call it "elitist" if you want, but I don't. I think that taking care of others is enlightened self-interest. None of us is completely independent, and we need others to assist in our care. It's a web made of threads of people taking responsibility for each other.

Non-social animals might see it as Elitist.

It depends what that responsibility is!

I don't know if "its elitist" but you are

We are all resposible for everything and each other in a non judgmental way. Energy follows thought, every thought everyone has is part of creating life the universe and everything. Simplistically put.

By responsibility is it meant today or for future generations. Again, question from my late partner to her 2nd graders: What is more important people or dirt? We have a responsibility to maintain the life support system that maintains life for LIFE (writ large). If taking 'care' of each other means a further deterioration of the ecosystem then we deserve just what we will get!!

That same thinking led to the holocaust, we have a responsibility to speak up and oppose wrongs

Circular argument

"Is it elitist to think we have a responsibility to others?"
In my opinion, it is elitist to think we do NOT.

The Golden Rule. Period.

It would seem that we have a responsibility towards all living things, otherwise they might disappear. If it is animals in question and we eat them, and a group of us thinks it is OK to eat them, then we do it. We have to keep this action in control of they might disappear forever. Coming up now to fellow humans we would control them, persecute them, and even murder them but again this is only allowed by group. It is the group that is elite. Doing any of this as an individual could end up with bad consequences and even charges of murder.

Sorry Donnie. Thanks but no thanks.

In answer to your question..in a word... No, it isn’t elitist. I believe it is basically acting out a belief that mankind has a collective responsibility towards ourselves and the world in which we inhabit. We need nothing beyond that to act responsibly towards all living things, man included. Intelligence quotient is not relevant to having empathy towards others, nor it seems is it a factor in having a belief in god or other mystical entities.

Those with less intelligence (either by mental capacity or education) require a systematic, patterned belief set to build their personal narrative around.

Do they actually need those things? Or are they just imposed on them by those with more power - physical, mental, economic - to keep them in control and deal with the freeloader problem? After all take a smart well educated person of 100 years ago and today they would probably have trouble getting by with their knowledge, do they need religion to cope, or just education and opportunity? And those of lower mental capacity who would have been institutionalized even 50 years ago might now be found living independent lives (perhaps somewhat community supported) and free from religion.