Mr. Atheist Goes to Church
I have seen the light, brothers and sisters! I have repented of my godless ways, asked forgiveness for my sins, and joined a congregation here in my home town! Rejoice!
Ok, I was kidding about the first part. But I did join a congregation. Seriously. No, I’m not joking, or trying to pull one over on you. I really did. Join a congregation. Someone get that guy some smelling salts.
For those of you who don’t know, my family and I live in a fairly conservative part of the American Southeast. My wife and I have two small children, both of whom go to preschool. About six months ago, a friend of my daughter asked her what church she went to. While my wife and I expected this to eventually be an issue, we were not prepared for three-year olds to be asking my kids where they went to church. While I have lived in the Southeast almost my entire life, we moved here recently from a more urban location where this was never remotely an issue. However, apparently my daughter was being asked quite regularly now about her religious affiliation, and it was starting to distress her.
Now while some like Andrew may think that, being an atheist, the only thing keeping me from eating my children is the fact that they would taste too gamey, in truth I would do almost anything for my children’s happiness. And not having a religious identity in such a religion-charged atmosphere was really causing my daughter grief. While she was not being picked on yet, she was starting to feel odd. All her friends had a church (even though most of them rarely went) and she wanted to know why she was different. We would pass by one of half a dozen churches on the way to her school, and she would ask me why we didn't go there. While we were prepared to teach her about religion when she got older, three years old is far too young for her to even begin to grasp religion in any critical sense. The best I could hope to do is indoctrinate her one way or another, which is the farthest thing from my intentions.
Additionally, both my wife and I had very fond memories of our social experience as part of a religious institution (me as a very active youth member of the Methodist church, my wife as a very active member of the B’nai B’rith Youth Organization). One unfortunate fact is that, at least in the rural Southeast, there really is no social substitute for religious organizations. The comprehensive community that often grows around active congregations is unmatched by any other social activity in my experience. The closest thing I had ever seen were the service fraternities in college, and those days were behind me.
My wife and I both thought that remaining separated from a religious congregation would cause our children serious social difficulties. However, we did not know how to solve the issue. While our community is in the Southeast, it is a university town and therefore diverse. Our neighbors to one side are Muslim, and the other side are Asian (I have no idea what their religious affiliation is). It seems not to matter so much WHAT your religion is here, just that you fit into some kind of category. But which category? I am an atheist, but above that, I am a freethinker. I did not want to indoctrinate my children in any religion; rather, I wanted to indoctrinate them in morals and the value of empiricism, and encourage them to decide on their own what religions, if any, made them happy. I was a recovering Methodist, so that avenue was open to us. If you are in a large enough community, you can usually find a liberal Methodist church. However, my wife was viscerally uncomfortable with any kind of Christianity, no matter how much it waffled on the divinity of Jesus. Such a position was understandable. My wife is a secular Jew, affiliated with the Reform movement. However, I have serious ethical problems with some facets of Judaism, such as their practice of selling tickets to their High Holy Days services and their emphasis on “us” and “other” (note, they do not condemn or criticize “other”, but they undoubtedly emphasize that there is a difference). Additionally, there is only a single Reform congregation here, and it teaches many of the more traditional tenets of Judaism. So that was out.
Fortunately, we did find a congregation to join. We visited the local Unitarian Universalist fellowship and spoke with the minister. It was quite interesting. The congregation is made up of about 1/3rd atheists and agnostics, a large number of deists, with a sprinkling of pagans, pantheists, and related theists. The creed of the fellowship is wholly humanistic, based on seven principles.
The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
We have been going there for about four months now, and have found it to be a very comfortable place for our non-theistic family. Our children are taught about various faiths around the world in a value-neutral manner. But above all, they are taught humanistic morals independent of religious authority. In fact, our sermon last Sunday was on the value of skepticism, and the belief and value of atheist, agnostics, and humanists to the Fellowship. It was a welcome contrast from the last Jewish sermon I saw during the last High Holy Days, where the rabbi stood up and viciously slandered atheists and agnostics, along with spreading misinformation about evolution.
I did not write this article just because I like to write about myself (that’s just a perk). I wrote this in case there were others here who were in a similar situation to me. Perhaps you have young children and you think they need a community of shared morals to help them develop. Or perhaps you have recently lost your faith and are feeling the deep loss of your former community, desperately seeking for something to take its place. Or perhaps you are a theist who has become disillusioned with the dogma of your church, and are seeking something more open and unstructured. Perhaps you should check out the nearest Unitarian Universalist congregation. I have also been told that the Society for Ethical Culture is similarly suited for non-theistic people. You should note that Unitarian Universalist congregations are largely autonomous, so your mileage may vary.

63 comments:
I cried as I read this post. I cried because like you I'm a father that would do anything for my children to help, protect and nurture them.
God has used your precious baby to help you and your wife move in the right direction. Bring all your questions, and apprehensions. I GUARANTEE HE'LL ANSWER. Just like you WOULD NOT dissapoint your child, Christ WON'T dissapoint neither you or me.
My testimony to this goes back a short time of 26 years and I am stronger now and more reaffirmed in the faith of Christ than ever before.
I believe that an ancient Chineese Proverb states that "The longest Journey begins with ONE step" I am glad that you are willing to walk hand in hand with your babies and wife on this journey.
Thank you for sharing that.
You know, before I wrote this, I contacted John Loftus and asked his advice becasue I was afraid I would get responses just like this one.
Harvey my friend, did you read a word I wrote? UUism is NOT a step toward Jesus; we've talked more about Kwanza than Christianity, because how can you live in the SE US and not know about Christianity? We sing songs about caring for one another because we are all people, not because some deity demands it. God had nothing to do with our joining; we're not looking for God, we're looking for a moral community that is specifically non-commital to any god(s).
And if you say you are sure that God would not disappoint me, I must say you live a blessed life. I hope you never find out first hand how wrong you are. There are many sincere, devout people in the world who suffer terrible personal tragedy without the intercession of God. You will find multiple posts here attesting to both specific instances and general categories, and in every case God has done nothing to intercede that we can determine.
I was hoping that this post would stimulate some discussion of the social value of religious communities in the US, and non-theist alternatives. This is not a conversion story--I've been there, and unless some spectacular evidence pops up, I will not be returning. Please, future commenters, please read what I wrote and not what you would like me to have written.
No---I read every word! I know UUC...I certainly don't agree with their doctrine, but I know scripture...There are many that Jesus has that HE will draw...Like I said...good start. It's just that you THINK you're in control...but God used a 3 year old to break you down...(LOL)
See I believe in miracles. The first miracle was that you even noticed your daughter and cared to do something about it. I'll be the LAST one to root you up now.
Sorry I couldn't meet more of your dogmatic expectations. (LOL)
Peace!
So far as personal tragedy...I've suffered MORE THAN MOST and yet I live for God gratefully and looking for even more opportunities to serve HIM. I'll leave it at that for now.
Skygetz, I faced the same path with my two girls. I took them to both the Baptist and Mormon churches. They were very active in both sects winning awards and in roles of leadership.
I remember having a Wicca (witch) talk at one of our religion and philosophy meetings (of which I was president) and asked my girls if they wanted to attend. They were very impressed at the link between Wicca and nature.
Today, at 22 and 25 neither attends any church and my younger daughter openly claims to be an atheist.
At outings, I am sometime asked to have the prayer before a meal since most people I know have referenced me to my past Christian ministry. This I do and I do it well for the benefit of Christian believers who are my friends and (although I’m an atheist), people have commented on how good the prayer was.
I have visited a Unitarian Universalist church, but after attending several Sunday schools classes where the discussion was 45 minutes on the local real-estate market, I felt I had wasted my time.
We all have different “spiritual” paths to walk. I think yours was a wise decision.
Thanks for the post, shygetz. It sounds like you found a good place to take your kids. When our children were small, we took them to a very liberal (the pastor had a long FBI file for helping illegal refugees) Lutheran church in Berkeley, for the community.
Here in Vienna, though, the churches are pretty conservative, and even my Catholic wife couldn't stomach the sermons in our parish. So the religious education our kids got was mostly from us, and religion classes in school, which are mandatory here. But not attending church is no big deal; there are lots of atheists and agnostics, and it carries no social stigma.
Now, Adam is nineteen and Rosi seventeen, and they are both atheists. But it wouldn't have bothered me if they had decided to become religious, as long as they turned out to be the loving, but occasionally exasperating, young people that they are now. The most important thing is to love them.
Cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch
UU is a gateway religion like pot is a gateway drug. Meaning it is not.
DSHB would LIKE to believe that you are on your way to being saved by god thru this step, and well, maybe Santa IS at his workshop crafting that red 4 door hard top Jeep Wrangler I asked for. I hope, I hope! In reality, a skeptic in church is having a field day of skepticism. And there is so much, from the stained glass window of Adam and Eve in fig leaves to the candlelight we know to have roots in pagan cermonies. Oh, the Christmas season is RICH in that!
DSHB can pray all he wants that this church will 'save' you but i doubt it. I bet when christain topics roll around, you will have your atheism bolstered.
It IS hard to see your kids suffer because of peer pressure. However, when mine were young, the rage was teenage mutant ninja turtles. Wrong and icky on SO many levels. I just said no. When their friends asked them to bring theirs to daycare, they said "We don't have those. Our parents give us nature toys and construction toys and books instead." Why, the zeal they had for such things and the total LACK of desire for the turtles made some kids jealous. So you CAN just say no. If you really don't beleive in it, you can. You can do something ELSE on Sunday morning to give them an answer. Go for nature walks. You would be surprised how much you would get, as a family, from a regular weekly commitment to get out there. When a kid is asked what church they go to, they could answer "Our family goes outdoors to study nature on Sunday mornings!" and they WOULD say it with enthusiam and probably follow up with "And last week we saw a hawk!" such that the churched became a bit envious. Or you could find some volunteer thing, and they could answer "We help build houses for people on Sunday morning. I got to help paint last weekend. See, here is some of the paint on my shoe!" would certainly get attention. What, a person doing ACTUAL charity on Sunday morning? What will make your kids be picked on is having an unsure answer. Just saying "My family doesn't beleive in that." in a confident way would shut down the questions. ive them the confidence in the validity of that so that they CAN answer confidently. If they could add some tolerance to it like "My parents don't beleive in that but my grandma is a Methodist" it would reassure the other person a bit that your kids are not goiong to be arrogant about the difference.
I said no to a lot of things, video games, television, violent play, toy guns, toy soldiers, because i did not beleive that the play practice of certain activities and ideologies were appropriate ways for my kids to spend their time. They were never social outcasts for it but were often leaders in their classrooms and in neighborhood play. One is at college as a freshman, helping lead the climbing club he joined. Churching is just another form of peer pressure that one CAN say no to and may choose NOT to allow children to participate in. Saying no IS an option, but give your kids a way to ANSWER about that, and to answer confidently and proudly.
I also had some wonderful experiences with the Unitarian-Universalist Church. I found the UU principles to be very compatible with my own atheism and secular humanism, and I spent several years as a member (yes, I signed the membership book) of a local UU congregation. I got to contribute to the community, made some friends, had many great conversations at brunch afterwards...my favorite part! (The old joke about Jews is true of UUs as well: any 2 of us will have 3 different opinions about something.)
I recommend the UU church to every skeptic/freethinker!
Churching is just another form of peer pressure that one CAN say no to and may choose NOT to allow children to participate in.
I have a few comments on this sentiment. First, from my kids' perspective on the question of churching as peer pressure. (I got the meat of this answer from an expert in these matters--my wife, who is a licensed child psychologist.) At this age, it's really not peer pressure in the traditional sense, it's categorization. The question isn't "What do you believe" or even "What did you do on Sunday", it's "What are you". Church (at least here and among the social circles in which my family travels) isn't a recreation on Sunday--as I said, most people in her class almost never go to church (there are often well-attended birthday parties on Sunday mornings). At least in this community and at this age, it is exactly like gender; you'll get along fine if you are a boy or a girl, but if you don't have any answer to the question "What are you" you'll have troubles. It's just part of your identity, a category that to the three- and four-year old mind (and unfortunately some chronologically older yet still ignorant minds) every person should fit into. I'm a girl, I'm four years old, and I'm a Baptist/Muslim/UU are all equally good answers because none of them know what those answers mean. The content matters not a whit and there is NO effort to change it, it just matters that you fit into the pattern.
Is it unfortunate that kids are taught that this is the pattern? Yes, it is--I think it is a symptom of the disease of having religious beliefs as part of a cultural identity when I think they should be private (less divisive that way, less risk of authoritarians taking advantage). However, I do not have a lever sufficiently long to move culture, and I am not willing to have my kids ostracized in an ineffectual symbolic stand on principle when there is a way to prevent it that does not violate my morals or ethics. Now, once the kids are old enough to learn bigotry there will be problems with my kids' UUism, but by then they will be old enough to know what bigotry is and learn something valuable from the experience, and I don't want my kids hanging out with proto-assholes anyway.
Now in addition, I value the idea of an ethical community in which to raise my children. Wholly aside from religious concerns, both my wife and I had valuable and treasured experiences in our religious communities. I love the fact that I have found an ethical community that my family can be a part of that is wholly independent of religious indoctrination, but still provides opportunity for service, an avenue for comprehensive ethical and religious education (which is important regardless of if you believe them or not), and most importantly a group of people of similar ages who adhere to similar ethical codes but have a diverse variety of backgrouns and opinions with which they can develop.
I have visited a Unitarian Universalist church, but after attending several Sunday schools classes where the discussion was 45 minutes on the local real-estate market, I felt I had wasted my time.
That's funny. Here, the services are broken into two parts. From 10 to 11, we have what's called Forum, where an expert leads a discussion on a topic of the day. It ranges from politics to science to ethics to economics (I think last week they talked about treatment and care of Alzheimer's disease). Roughly a third of the congregation only attends this part, and it is wholly unrelated to spiritualism. Afterwards, from 11 to 12, there is the service which has singing, public time to share joys and concerns of the community, and a sermon. This service tends to attract the more spiritual members of the congregation. The childrens' education also occurs during this time--my daughter is now learning about traditional Native American culture in addition to the ethical principles that she is taught every week (my son is still too young for education, and spends the time playing outside with friends). I haven't been able to attend Forum here yet, as I spend that time with my kids, but I would be much more interested in that than I am in the services themselves. I am in no way spiritual and I don't care for sing-alongs.
See I believe in miracles. The first miracle was that you even noticed your daughter and cared to do something about it.
The fact that anyone would have to consider that a miracle is sad.
It's just that you THINK you're in control...but God used a 3 year old to break you down...
This is more appropriately addressed in one of the many "free will" threads.
Not to comment-spam my own post, but I would like to put this thought out there for further discussion.
Psychological and quality-of-life studies have shown that people who are active in communities are happier AND healthier. When broken down to general stats, this results in active church-goers tending to be healthier and happier than their peers. Why? Because in the US, there are few (if any) active communities prepared to support a family through lifecycle events (birth, coming of age, marriage, and death) that are NOT churches. Can you think of any? I cannot.
Yet this is an issue that has, thus far, remained largely unaddressed by the non-believing community here. While we all agree that religious belief is unjustifiable, an unbiased examination of the evidence must lead us to accept that membership in a comprhensive community is valuable, and that few comprehensive communities exist outside of religion. So what to do about that? Do we, as non-believers, simply cede the known benefits of community involvement to the theists? Do we try a patchwork solution, where each member of the family is involved in a different community that is appropriate for his or her developmental stage? Or do we develop our OWN comprehensive communities based on non-religious precepts such as humanism, empiricism, and a love of knowledge?
Shygetz:
Like you I am a resident of the southeast. Like you I have two children that I love very much. I took them to church because my father and mother took me to church. In the bible belt, it's just what you do. If you ask someone in the north if they go to church you might hear; "Hell NO! If you ask someone from the bible belt if they go to church you may to hear; "Hell Yea!"
My family attended church every time the doors opened. I was a deacon, teacher choir member, ECt... If I could go back the first thing I would do is get my family out of that fundamentalist, brain dead, unethical, got to drink the kool-aid environment. My children today are in their twenties. One of my sons was molested by a man in the church. The pastor knew of prior allegations against this man and did nothing because the molester's father-in-law was one of the big monetary givers of the church. In 22 years in this church, 5000 people, (honestly I am not making this up)) came and went and I defended it. The stories of unethical, immoral, and even criminal behavior that I could tell would fill a small book. My family all have encouraged me to write about our experiences.
Your choice to find a church like UU is one that I wished I had had the insight and wisdom to do. The damage that fundamentalist church has done to my family is astounding. My children today assume if you are a pastor, you are a liar until proven otherwise. They did not get their by them selves, they had a lot of help from pastors. The thing that many christians have difficulty understanding is that we have been where they are.
My best wishes for you and your family.
shygetz,
I cried at this post, too... from laughing so hard at your comment, "...being an atheist, the only thing keeping me from eating my children is the fact that they would taste too gamey..." Maybe it was because mine were driving me crazy this morning, and the sentiment rang true.
Anyway, regarding the social benefits of church membership, it's my opinion that the social pressures are the numero uno reason people are in churches to begin with (the doctrinal belief structure is secondary). In my experience, every church is a social club to a larg extent.
That can be a social detriment, too, which is my problem.
Thanks for the laugh. It was one of the coolest posts I've seen in a while.
Agreed that this was one of the funniest things I have ever read:
"being an atheist, the only thing keeping me from eating my children is the fact that they would taste too gamey..
That coupled with this from another post:
"how ornate a shape are you willing to twist into to avoid coming to the obvious conclusion"
I nominate Shygetz for the 2008 DC Best Writing Award in the category of Humor.
Thanks and keep the gems coming!
Anyway, regarding the social benefits of church membership, it's my opinion that the social pressures are the numero uno reason people are in churches to begin with (the doctrinal belief structure is secondary). In my experience, every church is a social club to a larg extent.
I think you are probably right. My evidence is scant, but pretty convincing if it holds out across congregations--in the church in which I grew up, there were a HUGE variety of theological beliefs. Some believed in predestination, some believed in universalism, a few believed in unitarianism, some were inerrantists, a few were literalists, but all had either been there a long time, or had family there, or were Methodists somewhere else before moving there. If doctrinal concerns were the driving force in church membership, then the theological views of the congregation would have been much more monolithic, and people with differing theological views would move to a more accomidating church.
Hmmm, would children taste gamey? I have it on good authority that human flesh tastes similar to pork, and that even wild boar doesn't taste too gamey. Given that they are young and tender, I much doubt the gameyness of children.
Anyway, the post was good, but the subsequent discussion re: the merits of community involvement and the need for children to be categorized is excellent. Thanks guys.
Shygetz wrote:
"The creed of the fellowship is wholly humanistic, based on seven principles.
The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations"
Which conveniently illustrates the problem. Given an atheistic worldview, other than falling back on one's own opinion, who says every person has worth and dignity? Where did they come from? Why should one have compassion at all? These are all moral values and, given the assumption of evolution, not applicable to anyone other than as your personal opinion, which holds no compulsion for me. Nietzsche understood this quite well.
Funny thing is, no one can live that way. We can't help expressing the transcendent moral values that just won't let us go - yeah...that would be the Moral Law that God placed inside us.
"Either God exists, or He does not, but if He does not, nothing and no one can take His place" (Arthur Leff).
So please, when expressing moral values, state the truth, they are merely your opinions and no one else is bound by them.
I am very disappointed in the theists here. Rather than taking the opportunity to discuss the role of church in the community and family, thus far they have taken it as an opportunity to try to score tangential points on atheism. Why are you here if you are unwilling to discuss in good faith, but rather just wish to try to win one for Jesus, even when no fight is going on? Are there seriously not enough confrontational threads on DC to satisfy your urges? However, I will answer your irrelevant "problem" so that hopefully we can get back on track here.
Which conveniently illustrates the problem. Given an atheistic worldview, other than falling back on one's own opinion, who says every person has worth and dignity? Where did they come from?
Why do you need something other than your own opinion? I say it, and others agree with me. Thus we form our collective moral code. If you act contrary to this code, you will be censured by the community, and the form of the censure will depend on the will and strength of the community.
Why should one have compassion at all? These are all moral values and, given the assumption of evolution, not applicable to anyone other than as your personal opinion...
(Ah, an evolution-denialist. Give me a reason why I should take you seriously when you refuse to accept one of the most heavily evidenced scientific theories in existence?) Actually, given the fact of evolution (not assumption--such a word is reserved for things not in evidence), we would expect there to be a core moral code for all social animals, including us, due to its evolutionary advantage, potential heritability, and stepwise mechanistic ability to change. Probably the central biological basis behind complex moral codes is empathy (which is known to exist in other animals). That is the basis behind the precious Golden Rule, and explains why it is so widespread.
In organisms that employ social learning (such as, say, humans), social learning acts as a much faster and more directed vehicle for moral change, but leaves the core biological moral urge intact. This accounts for the variation of morality in time and cultures, while maintaining a core set of morals that directly impact genetic fitness in primitive human environments.
For example, close relative incest is a biological taboo present in social animals due to its effects in suppressing fitness by inbreeding depression. In the modern world of birth control, inbreeding depression can be prevented altogether, eliminating the biological consequences of close relative incest. However, evolution hasn't caught up to birth control (and there is no selective reason for it to do so), and the biological taboo remains. On the other hand, there is no biological urge towards or against slavery due to its small effect on the genetic fitness of the slave owner--the only urge involving slavery is the general empathic response which can be avoided by dehumanization of the slave (sound familiar?). So, we have seen our morals regarding slavery change as our social environment has changed.
As has been noted elsewhere, there is a direct correlation between the universality of human morals and their direct effect on fitness. Example--of all of the morals, the ones that are present across most cultures and times are parent-child incest and unjustified murder (and even these are not universal, as criminals occasionally demonstrate). These morals are the most directly related to genetic fitness. If you get away from morals directly involved with genetic fitness and more involved with social constructs (lets say, monogamy), you find the morals becoming less and less universal. Coincidence? Of course not--yet as it is unflattering to your cause, you will deny it against all evidence.
...which holds no compulsion for me.
Really? My morals say that you can't teach creationism as science in public schools. I would guess your morals say differently. So, since my morals have no compulsion on you, have you taught creationism as science in your local public high school? Been to a prison lately? I would say that morals of a collective society can have quite a binding compulsion on you, and that is not counting more subtle socioeconomic pressures towards moral conformity (just try conducting business wearing a man-thong--it's legal, but not advisable due to community morals).
What compulsion does God's morals hold on me outside of His ability to censure me? None. Is it enforced by my conscience? That does not require God; empathy and evolution as a social animal are sufficient. So your imposition of God does not change this calculus; external morals only hold compulsion when the potential for censure exists.
Nietzsche understood this quite well.
Are you saying Nietzsche had no moral system because he thought there was no God? You are wrong--Nietzsche based his (crappy) moral system on what he thought was the way things are, the very definition of the is-ought fallacy. Nietzsche thought the driving force behind all behavior, human and animal, was a Will to Power. His philosophy (including his ethics) were based on this silly counterfactual assumption. Try reading Adam Smith and David Hume and some of the humanistic philosophers rather than getting hung up on Nietzsche as the be-all end-all of non-theistic moral systems.
Funny thing is, no one can live that way. We can't help expressing the transcendent moral values that just won't let us go...
What exactly makes these moral laws "transcendent"? They don't transcend time--they have changed over time. They don't transcend space--they are different in different cultures. So what exactly do they transcend? What do you mean by "won't let us go"? People change their moral code all the time. Do you live in fantasy land, or do you just ignore anything that does not confirm what you believe, and hope no one will notice?
- yeah...that would be the Moral Law that God placed inside us.
Funny that God placed a different moral law inside each of us. Also funny that moral law has changed over time. Similarly funny that moral law was insufficient; God also had to write a written law that does not correspond to moral law (not making graven images and keeping the Sabbath holy are not intrinsic to even a sizable minority of us).
Where did God get His morals from? Do you declare by fiat (because you certainly don't have any evidence) that they are intrinsic to Him? Then if morals can be intrinsic to a conscious being, why can they not be intrinsic to humans, and leave God out of it?
So please, when expressing moral values, state the truth, they are merely your opinions and no one else is bound by them.
First of all, I have pointed out where you are wrong. Regardless of what you think about murder, you are bound by my morals to not commit it under penalty of heavy censure, since my morals are shared by my society. Second of all, for my morals that are not enforced by society, did I ever say or imply that they were not my opinion? That is your failing, not mine--the only morals I can enforce are those behind which I can build a social consensus for enforcement or towards those people who desire my cooperation.
The arguments from morality are all deeply flawed, and beside the point of this thread. You can never get away from Euthyphro. Are actions good because God commanded them (in which case good is truly arbitrary and can be just as arbitrarily chosen by people) or does God command them because they are good (in which case there is a transcendental standard of good, and God is rendered unnecessary for morality as the transcendental standard can be invoked).
Do you, as Aquinas, claim that God commands things that are good, but that good is an essential part of God's nature? That is impossible for you to know without a transcendental external standard by which to judge God, which again would render God unnecessary for morality. Aquinas was wrong, Lewis was wrong, and now you are wrong.
I empathize with your situation. I am also a father of 2 hoping to raise them with critical thinking skills and self-confidence outside of religion. My children aren't old enough to have encountered this yet, but my wife and I are anticipating these uncomfortable scenarios.
I find it preposterous that any three year old could be so concerned with religious (or political) affiliation that they feel the need to ask others to which group they belong. That is, to me, like asking where your family gets their automobile oil changed. It is useless information to an average three year old. And so what if Daddy changes his own oil? Completely irrelevant to in world of a young child.
That said, it sounds like you may have found a congregation you enjoy associating with. Congrats! It can be difficult to find this as a "non-believer". The question you posed regarding social value of religion I assume is about your relationship to the group, not social programs (helping the homeless, hospitals, etc.) There can be tremendous value in having a community of like-minded folks to associate with. It can improve physical and mental health, stimulate business, make life issues more manageable... The problem is whether one is being sociable to promote a personal agenda or does s/he truly believe in the "mission". There are plenty "non-religious" groups that have social value to a family. Donate regular time to a charity organization. Get involved with yoga or non-denominational meditation or camping group. Periodically take a trip to the city to attend freethinker's meeting. Start your own group. I became skeptical of religion in grade school, but because I didn't know any different I was unable to move on for many years. I suffered needlessly under the pulpit for far too long. Help others to feel comfortable within similar situations that you are experiencing.
I became squeamish as I read how your child was becoming uncomfortable with the topic. It is difficult to imagine one's child suffering. But, a parent may need to use these situations to teach peer pressure resistance. And this won't be the only time a child will feel uncomfortable... once a denomination is selected it may be the "wrong one" in other's eyes. Maybe your children will have to attend the "bad" public school... drive the wrong car... etc. Children feel odd even when they are perfectly average and "normal." That is in their job description:P
Best wishes!
Shygetz thanks for that.
Your kids are lucky!
Shygetz said:
"Why do you need something other than your own opinion? I say it, and others agree with me. Thus we form our collective moral code. If you act contrary to this code, you will be censured by the community, and the form of the censure will depend on the will and strength of the community."
Well that is Nietzsche in a nutshell for sure - the will to power. Whoever is strongest declares what morality is, which is pretty good reasoning given the assumption that there is no God.
Of course your answer was interesting (and long), the weakness is that there is no foundation for morality that is transcendent. It is an interesting opinion, and for purposes of the argument I'll assume you are absolutely correct in all you say. So what? You hold compassion and justice as moral goods, bully for you, but the Vikings held compassion as a weakness. You can have nothing to say about them other than your opinion, after all they're only living out their "evolved" morality (same with the Nazis and Stalin and Mao).
Whether or not you agree or believe that there is a transcendent morality (an absolute Moral Law) makes no difference at all. It's kind of like gravity, you are subject to it whether you like it or not, or even believe it.
So to sum up the weakness in your foundation your belief is something like this, "morality is relative, society decides what is moral, and forces it on everyone." Oops wait a minute, I thought you didn't want me forcing "non-evolutionary" views on you. But your argument says that if I can muster enough people on my side, I can make it "moral" and "force" you to follow it, or punish you. Now that is a slippery slope.
So to sum up the weakness in your foundation your belief is something like this, "morality is relative, society decides what is moral, and forces it on everyone." Oops wait a minute, I thought you didn't want me forcing "non-evolutionary" views on you. But your argument says that if I can muster enough people on my side, I can make it "moral" and "force" you to follow it, or punish you. Now that is a slippery slope.
John Murphy -- please identify a society in history that operated on the principle of universal moral laws that were available to all citizens. Please show me a society that did not use force to censure those who violated its norms. Please show me a society that had no disagreement regarding moral values.
It is possible that there is a flaw in your thinking if you cannot show me an example of any of the above.
This is highlighted by your regarding morals as if they inhere in something other than the brains of beings.
They don't. And you would know it if you took a little bit of time to reflect on human society. You see we have plenty of members of society who are amoral. They are called children. And when they behave immorally we ignore their behavior if they are not mentally capable of doing otherwise.
If they become mentally capable of doing otherwise, we instruct them in morality when they behave immorally. If they continue to behave immorally we punish them.
If you can show me where I am making a mistake there, I'd like to know.
Given the facts above, it seems obvious that moral values are at least to a degree learned by beings from their social and cultural milieu. If this is the fact, the idea that they exist in something other than the brains of beings requires a very high bar of evidence. You so far have supplied no evidence.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Hi,
I came across your blog because I have a google alert for Ethical Culture. Your sentence "I have also been told that the Society for Ethical Culture is similarly suited for non-theistic people." showed up. That is true.
Ethical Culture is a very small denomination, with only about 25 congregations. Since we have so few, we recently began the Ethical Society Without Walls, which is primarily online and therefore available to many more people.
The Ethical Society Without Walls is dedicated to cultivating a community of people who support each other in:
* leading a more ethical life
* bringing out the best in the Human Spirit
* appreciating the unique capacities in every person
* raising the quality of our relationships with family, friends, co-workers, and neighbors
* doing our part to create a more just, loving and sustainable world for all
I am the Leader (which is what we call our clergy) of the Ethical Society Without Walls and welcome you or any of your readers to come visit us.
Wishing you well,
Susan Rose
I grew up in the Unitarian church, even before they merged with the Universalists. The standing joke we told on ourselves was that the church was a halfway house for atheists. It never really occurred to me that the door swung both ways. Welcome to the loose, amorphous fold...
That was a interesting article, thank you. I've been looking for words to describe my perspective, words like sceptic or atheist, but I think I will use freethinker from now on. And I had no idea that organizations like the one you joined exist. So many things to explore in this beautiful world.
This is great stuff. I live in Madison, MS & have three kids, so this really speaks to me. A few years ago we joined an Episcopal church in Jackson - only went a few times - none of us liked wasting 4 hours each Sunday getting dressed, getting there, etc...
Like you, I've been surprised at the pressure my kids have gotten to identify themselves religiously (they're 6,6,&9) - it's crazy. Also like you, I've found others' church identities more like those of the frat guys I knew at Ole Miss (without the drugs & booze of course).
shygetz, thanks for posting this story. I left Christianity about 8 years ago. My kids are grown and have never really experienced much in the way of church since I gave up on church many years before I gave up on my faith. But I do miss the community of friends, even though I had few friends when I was in church.
I think I would really enjoy the UU setting. I have looked at a website of a church about 50 miles from me (there is none in my little southern Virginia town). I think the diversity and openness is what I find appealing. I used to go to a Christian church with my girlfriend a year or so ago, even though I was an atheist. I was largely ignored and found the typical Christian sermon disturbing and unappealing. I may give this church a try. It would just be nice visit with some open minded people, if that is indeed how they are. As an atheist, I feel very isolated at times.
lets_reason@yahoo.com
Fascinating. Thanks for writing this- very interesting about the culture down there. I think you found exactly what you were looking for - a social group that pretends to be a church so that everyone's happy - both you and the people who expect you to go to church.
You may have inspired me to start writing my blog.
UUA churches can be a bit hard to find in some areas. There are only about 600,000 members in North America. Churches tend to be primarily in larger urban areas and college towns. Fellowships used to fill the void but I think that program has officially ended. There is a close symbiotic relationship between Unitarians, unprogrammed Quaker meetings and Reformed Judaism so those might offer an alternative in some areas.
As for atheists in the UUA, about 20% of the members define themselves as such. I can remember in the 1960's that Madalyn Murray O'Hair was frequently a speaker at the forums of the First Unitarian-Universalist Church of Austin. That raised a few eyebrows...
I would just like to say that I am also a resident of the SE, and I was fortunate enough to be brought up in a UU community myself. I have very fond memories from there, and only good things to say.
I think you made a wise decision, and thanks for a good read. =]
Shygetz,
While it is perfectly parental to have your child's happiness in mind, I feel that you are sacrificing your child's short-term well-being at the expense of her long-term self-confidence. In all actions as a parent, you have to ask yourself two questions: "What path am I putting my child on, if I react this way to this situation?" and "What psychology am I imprinting on my child if I react this way?"
Let me pose this situation: what if those kids keep asking your daughter what kind of drugs she snorts... are you going to hook up some coke to keep her happy and safe from peer pressure?
She feels that there's something wrong with her for not going to church... so what do you do? You take her to church... thus reinforcing that notion! You are also telling her that when people harass you about something, that you should go ahead and do it! And another side-effect of taking her to this "church", is that you are telling her that she cannot be a whole person unless she belongs to some kind of "group" that believes in some kind of fairy tale or superstition. I know she's too young to grasp the concept of a magical cloud-dwelling deity that behaves as if it was an egotistical human, but you are instilling the notion that religiousness is good and you are filling her childhood with positive feelings towards the concept of religion. For the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, stop it!
There's nothing wrong with her, there's something wrong with those indoctrinated kids! But how do you convey that? She is too young to understand the inferiority complex that the religious suffer from, indicated by their need for an imaginary super-being with super-powers that uses those powers to grant wishes (except re-growing amputated limbs... magical deities never, EVER, seem to grant that wish). So there's no need to discuss the many hypocrisies and contradictions in religion. However, children are curious about the world around them, and if you just lock them up and forcibly shield them to "protect" them from the world, they grow up incapable of dealing with the world once they get old enough to get out of the house. She is too young to comprehend the scam that is religion, so don't bother battling it. Instead, fill her childhood with a belief system based on self-actualization.
First, take her to every church in the neighborhood, the ones that you see everyday. When children see something everyday, they begin to yearn for it (ever see a kid absolutely 'have to have' some stupid worthless toy based purely on the daily tv commercial bombardment?) But before each visit, tell her that you're taking her there just so she can see the weird stuff that they do, and then she won't feel she's missing out on anything important. Lining up these churches side-by-side nullifies their self-assigned authority and self-assigned importance. They'll all feel the same to her, so none of them will seem "true". After the worldwind tour, she'll ask which one do you go to you? And that's when you tell her that mommy and daddy don't believe anything those people say, and that's why the two of you don't go to church.
Then, teach her to be self-actualized. If you don't know what that is, it's just a fancy term for being an achiever. Someone who sets goals and strives to accomplish them. So teach her how to do stuff. And if you can, also get her into classes that teach her stuff (she needs a little social interaction). Sports, musical instruments, martial arts, foreign language, drawing/painting, ballet, yoga, etc. I know classes can get expensive, and tedious to drive back and forth, but try to get her into at least one energetic one. For the rest of her extracurriculars, you could get by with just googling a bit to find basic tutorials for just about everything. The more variety the better (she'll specialize as she gets older). And make sure Sunday is fun day - on Sundays make sure she participates in more than one class or activity, preferably the energetic ones.
Lastly, teach her some tactics on how to casually deflect peer pressure, so she won't feel threatened by it.
Do these things and the lesson that you will be planting in her brain is that skill-building is good, not religiousness. Then her self-esteem will be derived from her accomplishments, rather than her delusions.
I found this article very interesting. I do not believe that a child should be involved with religion until they are older enough to understand it. I live in NZ and it is very strange concept here to think that people are harassed that much for not being religious. I live in a small rural town where quite a few folks are Exclusive Brethren and on the whole are quite nice. They only get in your face when they stand in the street and start rambling and in which case, if I am there, go up and put them in their place otherwise they are ignored. I do not want to hear delusional ramblings thank you very much. The main difference in NZ is that one does not want to declare too loudly that they are too religious in case they get teased! People here are not afraid to say they do not believe in God or any God for that matter and will not get harassed for it either. I think that is because NZers are very secular plus religion does not play a big part in society. We only have one or two "loud" so called religious "leaders" and they pray on the weak. Most NZers do not like them. NZ is also very multi-cultural so that is a big advantage. I have had some good discussions with my local electrician (christian) when he comes to do some work and he does not get offended or upset if I do not agree and vice versa. Come for a holiday, you never know, you may like it and want to stay. Besides, with the 'Great Depression' on the way, more people will be getting "religion". Scary.
We moved out of the South a few years back. In our new home, in Ohio, we are able to be openly athiest and it is not a problem. Our children have been asked about their church/beliefs/etc. and they are able to respond by saying, "We don't believe in all of that stuff." without suffering any repercussions from their friends, classmates, etc. It is great!
We've been able to discuss this with them, talk in detail about why we do not follow a religion or believe in God and they really seem to "get" the reasoning. They have no trouble passing this reasoning on to religious kids when asked about what they believe in. Who knows, maybe they will be able to open a few closed minds and help move a child away from Christianity and onto a greater understanding, tolerant and decent way of looking at life.
Shygetz: What a great post. I wish that society didn't put such a stigma on atheists. But I'm glad that the UU exists so that there is a sense of community for those who believe in ethics for ethics' sake.
I was very interested to see this article, because it reminded me of my own childhood very strongly.
For context, I am currently 19, and I grew up in the rural midwest, homeschooled by parents who are atheist and agnostic, but who both grew up in conservative churches.
When I was about 7, I chose to start going to church on my own, as I recognized that it was one of the few social structures available to me, since I was outside the realm of public school. I attended regularly until about 14, sometimes dragging my family along. By the time I was twelve, I had pretty well come to the conclusion that there wasn't much to this whole god idea, but I don't regret my time there at all. I devoted a lot of time to studying the bible as a result of church activities, and as it turns out, being able to quote the bible readily at a liberal arts college is quite a rarity, and somewhat of a conversations piece. There was also such a great sense of community at the church I attended (a nazarene congregation of about 60-80 people), and I really feel that I have benefited from having a grasp of what life is like in a church. I feel that I would have enjoyed a unitarian church even more, had one been available, but I was very interested to see the conundrum you faced, and attending UU services is probably the best solution there is.
As a closet Christian (here on the Gold Coast in Australia, any sort of religion is seen as shameful), I remember the days of going to church. The thing that I miss the most was the community, as you said.
The chance to meet so many people on a regular basis outside of a work/learning environment is very good for us, I think, it's just a pity about the content of the service sometimes.
It is definitely a problem that there are not as many communities of that calibre around here which do not associate with a religious entity.
And don't worry, I'm not about to go the road of Harvey and tell you that UU is a good path because it'll lead your children closer to religion, the shame of Christianity here has beaten any sort of conviction out, and the best I can say is that it's a good thing they will get that community, and a chance to analyse religions in a neutral ground.
Another thing I've noticed is that some of the strongest atheists I know came from religious backgrounds. Perhaps the biggest contributor to the atheist movement is the church?
Thank you for your post.
Being a militant anti-theist atheist, I don't think I'd fit in well at a UU church, and I'm pretty sure I would let my children have a piece of my mind about the 'importance' of belonging to a church.
I apologize for my absence from these comments; family obligations and all. I would like to thank all of those who have given supportive comments. I appreciate the sentiments.
I would like to respond to those who seem to think that I am teaching my children to unnecessarily yield to peer pressure. I have a few points I would like to make.
1.) As I mentioned in a previous comment, at this age the question being asked to my children is not "What do you believe?" or even "How do you spend your Sundays?" It's "What are you?" It's no different from asking if you are a boy or a girl; it doesn't matter so much what the answer is, just that you have an answer. There is a reason why most doctors and psychologists recommend sex assignment surgery for intersex babies rather than trying to raise them as both or neither.
2.) As I mentioned befoore, there really is no religion to this church. The teachings are entirely humanistic. While religious education is part of the children's program, it is not indoctrination. They are taught (at an age-appropriate time) what certain groups of people believe (which I would argue is essential for anyone), but they are not taught that it is true. The only things that they are indoctrinated in is humanistic ethics (and I've been trying to indoctrinate them in that anyway). If the only options to me were a traditional church, I would still be looking for another answer to the identity question. However, since a humanistic option was available, why is it bad? Because it calls itself a "fellowship" and meets on Sunday?
3.) Even if I grant the idea that a congregation is not important for my children's identity, that still leaves one important factor--such a community is good for them. And I don't mean good in some spiritual, fuzzy sense; I mean empirically, measurably good. As was previously mentioned, studies have shown the people active in communities are happier and healthier. While one commenter suggested that we join a service organization, a yoga class, etc. for community, none of these are what I would call a "comprehensive" community. By "comprehansive", I mean a community that is prepared to support a family through all of the major life cycle events (birth, coming of age, marriage, and death) and provide service, education, and social opportunities. This UU congregation offers all of those things without the taint of theism--why would I not take advantage of it?
I went to UU services for about a year after I realized that I was an atheist. After a while I lost interest, but the fact that so many similar-minded people have built a community is certainly a positive thing. I just don't have any need to attend the services anymore, though kudos to and your wife for finding a good alternative to the evils of teaching a child that god is a fact and not some abstract idea that makes no sense in the context that it's usually used in.
Shygets.
Thanks for this post.
I can relate.
@shygetz
First, thanks for a great article. I enjoyed it because my wife and I have two young children outside Athens, Georgia and have struggled with this same issue. There is tremendous pressure put on them in our community. However, your points are a mixed bag of good and poor rationalizations based on your stated motivation of “not having a religious identity in such a religion-charged atmosphere was really causing my daughter grief” and “not... so much WHAT your religion is here, just that you fit into some kind of category.”
Your best point above is that “community is good for them.” But that really doesn't address your main concern as a father, which was the avoidance of out-group dynamics for your kids. However much that I applaud your choice of label; your motivation remains questionable at best. As you admit, a more-desirable community is one that ignores religious labels all together. Your motivation is therefore contributing to a degraded community because you insist on reinforcing this label mentality. Please admit this and stop trying to have it both ways.
On to your weaker point that “It's 'What are you?' It's no different from asking if you are a boy or a girl” You certainly can't be serious. Your desire to attach a religious label to your kids so that they can “pass” in the south has now risen to a physical attribute or a problem with gender assignment. Oh, but you will say, it's not _really_ a religious label. Do you work for the Democratic National Committee by chance?
Your other point that “since a humanistic option was available, why is it bad?” is a straw man. Humanism is not bad and nobody is calling it bad. What was stopping you from labeling you kids as humanist prior to this UU come to Jesus meeting? The motivation for your behavior simply reinforced a despicable taboo against religious non-conformity and your attempts at rationalizations ring hollow. You surely must recognize yourself as weaker in principle from parents who do not force a religious label on their kids regardless of pressure. Forgive my flippancy, but when your kids grow up and ask you why they went to UU, you will probably tell them that you liked the place and not that you did it so that they could “pass” as religious in front of friends.
Nobody said being a parent was easy, and like I said, this is something that I have struggled. Good luck and I wish the best for you and your family.
Your post spawned an outside discussion with my fiancee that I'll share with you:
ME: I agree with that athiest's post (and the comments from the "District Supt." are hilariously ignorant), but I would never suffer my child a day at the UU church. It is pure pablum and barely can hide it's inability to attach any meaning whatever to its services and beliefs. I would join a liberal church easily just for the social stuff. I have great memories of church camps, potluck dinners, "pig-pickins" etc. Rarely, if ever, did we talk about Jesus, except in Sunday school and during church services, which I largely suffered through by making a pest of myself as a child. But holy crap I would never return to a UU church ...
SHE: I've never been to a UU church... My favorite church experience thus far in life, I hate to admit, was at a Southern Baptist church. They're just so... welcoming. You get to kick it with great-grandmas and babies and new mommas and sullen teenagers and get yelled at by a terrifying yet charismatic man, sing rousing renditions of various hymns, and then eat really fantastic homemade food. What's not to love? Aside from the lies, contradictions, repression and likely sexual abuse, of course.
PROLOGUE for this thread: I too went through this with my daughter, who really went through a need to be connected to a church and to God for about a year from age 6-7 (she's 8 now). We attended a few services, talked about things and then one of the many oppressively proselytizing fundies in our part of Southern Oregon pressed a children's picture Bible into her hands (we're in John Bircher country, and eager to soon escape). I had a lot of "fun" explaining the picture of Abraham holding a dagger high over his head, ready to plunge it into his son. And explaining the plagues depicted in "Prince of Egypt" (an otherwise excellent film), how EVERY Egyptian DESERVED to suffer horribly because of their leader's intransigence. There were several other difficult explanations, and I'm sorry, "God works in mysterious ways" is an absolute insult, even to a child.
She's outgrown it now it seems, and we'll talk about religion and faith as she grows. As I said above in my e-mail to my fiancee I may still one day join a liberal church, but mainly for the social side of it, the moral lessons it reaffirms and the truly fascinating and gory fiction it holds up as the infallible word of God. UU churches I've visited are just as oppressively self-righteous in their own way (New Agey blechness) as fundies. Maybe I'll also introduce my daughter to the Apocrypha, that "word of God" that middle ages church folk thought too "out there" to include in the church doctrine. Right now she's too stuck on enjoying Junie B Jones and Spiderwick to go back to a Goosebumps Bible.
Welcome to religious liberalism! I was raised by atheists who attended the Methodist church in our small, southern NM town. Mom and Dad didn't make a big deal about it, but we had some frank discussions about how damaging religious bigotry could be. There were benefits for me - great volleyball skills, leadership training, and vocal training in some fairly good choirs. I left Methodism after a failed faith healing at a church camp did zero for my arthritic knees (I know, I know - I was trying to be a good sport...)
After I had daughters of my own and was living in a community large enough to have a thriving UU community, my mother asked for a special Mother's Day gift. My sister, our daughters, and I accompanied her to a gathering (it's just so different from church I have trouble using the word) and we haven't looked back. My babies, all adults (?) now, are well versed in the history of world religions, liberal in the richest sense of the word, and happily pursuing their own reasoned exploration of community. No UU congregation is like another, and the differences are great entertainment.
Without exception, I have found welcome and the best quality brain candy on the market. As is typical, many of the people I interact with are atheists or humanists, too. We have an active pagan community, various flavors of reformed major religions, and people who don't choose any label with which to self identify. I love it this way, and I'm sure you will, too.
Salud!
Joyce
Having been born and raised in the Southeast, this mostly highlights why I will never be moving back there. When my family wonders why and ask about raising kids in the city, I may direct them to this post so I can simply so "So I don't have to worry about this."
When I think back on my own church upbringing what I recall is a round robin of ministers that came and went because the congregation never could come to find any of them agreeable to them. I remember being "friends" with one of those minister's kids, and this was the first person I ever got very drunk with in the minister's house no less. He was also growing pot in his closet. And he was the good kid. The other kids were... seriously, this story could go on for HOURS. It ends with the poor kid I knew being ostracized from his family for being gay and then "going straight" again to get acceptance from them. What's funny is how when I start chatting with other people I grew up with there how much of their church experiences mirrored my own. That church was entirely about social standing for middle-age folks and seniors. For kids, though, mostly it was a great jumping point for getting high, making connections for hooking up for sex, etc. i.e. just another meet up point for what most teenagers are interested in.
As a young child? Frankly, I feel like I received better ethical education from Star Trek reruns and comic books than I did from religion. Church creeped me out as a child, all of them that we ever visited.
ryan said: Being a militant anti-theist atheist, I don't think I'd fit in well at a UU church, and I'm pretty sure I would let my children have a piece of my mind about the 'importance' of belonging to a church.
I can sympathize ryan. I am anti-indoctrination, anti-proselytization, and anti-superstition in general. However, I think that letting your three-year old "have a piece of [your]mind" about his/her need for a religious identity in a society where religious identity is consedered an essential part of your description of self would be unfair and unhelpful. Making the child feel guilty for not knowing what he/she is would, in my unexpert estimation (I haven't had a chance to ask my expert wife her opinion on this), compound the problem.
bloggernist, I am with you insofar as the UU services do nothing for me. However, the children's education has actually been pretty good so far (the kids don't actually sit in the service with the adults here; they have their education time during the adults' service time). And I do recognize that, just because the services do nothing for me, they may do something for other people (even empiricists such as myself) who appreciate such things.
I can also relate to your issues in explaining some of the religious stories to your children. My in-laws are practicing Jews, and I have had to "lose" a few books they have given my children. The one I remember most was a Passover book. I was horrified when I saw that a children's picture book explained the Ten Plagues of Egypt in children's terms, along with nice illustrations of each (usually using children in the pictures). While my wife resists some of my book "losing" (she has a strong cultural Jewish identity, even though her religious beliefs are not at all Jewish), she fully agreed with this one and asked her parents what their problem was. Turns out, they had never read the book. And I do think you reiterate a good point--each UU congregation is different, so your mileage may vary.
jim said: But that really doesn't address your main concern as a father, which was the avoidance of out-group dynamics for your kids. However much that I applaud your choice of label; your motivation remains questionable at best. As you admit, a more-desirable community is one that ignores religious labels all together. Your motivation is therefore contributing to a degraded community because you insist on reinforcing this label mentality. Please admit this and stop trying to have it both ways.
So you would have me subject my young children to community ostracism in an attempt to make some kind of social point that they are unable to understand and that will have no effect on the community as a whole?
And you say I sound like a DNC member! Hack off your nose to spite your own face much?
You certainly can't be serious. Your desire to attach a religious label to your kids so that they can “pass” in the south has now risen to a physical attribute or a problem with gender assignment. Oh, but you will say, it's not _really_ a religious label.
Gender assignment surgery is not only done to correct some dangerous physical feature; it is done to give a child a firm gender identity as part of their overall identity. As I said before, with children this age in this society religion is an identity issue. Yes, it is almost as important an identity issue as gender (in this society). Do you deny it? If so, you are going against the established opinion of experts in the field; in cultures where religion plays a dominant social role, religious identity is an essential part of a child's overall identity and has a strong effect on their interaction with peer groups. Why would you believe it to be otherwise? You claim to live outside of Athens GA, and area I am quite familiar with--do you claim that religion does not play a dominant role in the culture at large in your region? What's the top headline today in the Athens newspaper (online edition)? I'll give you a hint--it's not "Mourners crowd park for funeral of slain student".
And yes, at this age it is a religious label (I never claim otherwise, and I think you are being disingenuous to claim I did), but it is not a religion (or at least, I would not classify it as a religion, as it requires no belief in a deity); if you want to say that I'm taking advantage of three- and four-year olds' (and quite possibly some of their parents') misunderstanding of what religion is in order to give my kids a pseudo-religious identity, I'll gladly cop to that charge. As I said multiple times before, once my kids' peer group becomes aware of doctrine, their UUism will probably be a problem with some people. And at that time, my kids will be of an appropriate age to deal with such issues. As of now, they are not, and trying to make an issue of it would be unproductive.
Your other point that “since a humanistic option was available, why is it bad?” is a straw man. Humanism is not bad and nobody is calling it bad.
You are presenting the straw man, my friend. I said "humanist option", in a context that clearly indicated that "option" referred to a congregation (in fact, I directly compared it to a traditional church). You then transfer that to humanism the philosophy. Your straw man, not mine. And given that you are claiming that accepting a humanistic option is somehow makes me an unprincipled parent, I would say that this question still remains for you to answer.
What was stopping you from labeling you kids as humanist prior to this UU come to Jesus meeting?
Since we're pointing out logical fallacies here, the phrase "come to Jesus" is clearly egregiously loaded language, and quite unfair. Why not present your argument directly instead of resorting to emotional appeals? The reason that I did not simply tell my kids "You're humanist" is because this identification does not give her a social group with which to identify, not to mention the fact that it does not give her a community (which I stated in the original post and the comments was an important incentive to our decision). Since I was able to find a humanist congregation, I could slaughter whole flocks of birds with one stone. Had the UU congregation been unavailable or unsuitable, we probably would have gone with something along the lines of the "I am a humanist" route and see if that would stave off the issue until the kids were older.
The motivation for your behavior simply reinforced a despicable taboo against religious non-conformity and your attempts at rationalizations ring hollow.
You're right; I should use my four-year old as a tool for social change. Perhaps I can find a group of like-minded toddlers and together we can bring this injust society to a grinding halt! (That was sarcasm, by the way). If I was shooting for conformity, I would have sent my kids to the Baptist church, and living outside of Athens you know that damn well. Again, were one of your children born intersexed, would you refuse gender assignment surgery so you could make a point about the bigotry of society towards gender conformity? If so, I shudder for your children.
Additionally, you confuse the initiating event with a sole motivation. As I made clear before, there were multiple reasons that we chose to join the UU congregation. My daughter's problems were the reason we chose to join now, but only one of several overall reasons we chose to join.
You surely must recognize yourself as weaker in principle from parents who do not force a religious label on their kids regardless of pressure.
No, I don't. You seem to think that care for your children's well-being is an inferior ethical principle to ineffective social action. I respectfully disagree.
Forgive my flippancy, but when your kids grow up and ask you why they went to UU, you will probably tell them that you liked the place and not that you did it so that they could “pass” as religious in front of friends.
I forgive your flippancy, but not your presumption. Unless you have developed an atheist equivalent to the miraculous mind-reading powers many theists here often claim to have, you have no idea what I will or will not tell my children once they ask me that question. I am in the habit of lying to my children as little as needed, and this would not be a necessary lie. I would gladly tell them that the reason that we joined the UU congregation is that they were having cultural identity issues about their religious group, so we found a group that would allow for group identity and education without religious indoctrination (although, depending on their age, I probably wouldn't use those exact words).
I'll make another confession; Santa Claus brings presents to my children. By your reasoning, jim, every atheist that allows Santa to bring their children presents is guilty of perpetuating myth and superstition as fact (or at least, allowing it to remain unchallenged, which is largely what I do) simply so that their children might better fit into their peer group around Christmas time. By your reasoning, I should deny my children this myth and tell them that Santa is not real to make some kind of point. Nevermind the fact that such a point will be lost on a toddler and will cause him or her large problems when they spread that point to their peers; the mere motivation behind my perpetuation of the Santa myth is sufficient to help prop up this monolith of bigotry in SE America and teach my children to be conformists to superstition, rendering me into a parent of inferior principles.
Are there any other atheists whose children are visited by Santa? Do you feel you have inferior principles for doing so? Tell me jim; does Santa visit your children?
You bring me a lever sufficiently long to move culture, and I'll help you push. Until then, don't expect me to throw away my kids' happiness on a futile attempt to enact social change. Those are stakes I am unwilling to wager.
Shygetz,
Thank you for posting this. I am an agnostic in the southeast and this weekend my wife, who is Christian, and I had a rather large dispute regarding church. You might be interested to know that her arguments for attending and joining the associated "extracurricular" groups are purely based on the social aspects you mentioned.
She does believe, but her main concern regarding the church is belonging to a community during pregnancy, child-raising, illness, etc. I recognize the value of this, but I have been increasingly discontent with pretending to believe.
I had never heard of the Unitarian Universalist church before, but since reading your post I have located a couple in my area and am excited to try them out. Thanks again.
Hi, I just found your blog through digg, and I wanted to say that I found this post really interesting. :) I think it's great that you want to teach your children to make their own decision on religion. I remember when I was 5ish, asking my dad "if we were christians" and he answered by telling me that that was something I had to decide for myself. He taught me that whatever I believed, I shouldn't be afraid to challenge it's truth. I've always respected my dad for bringing me up that way. I'm sure that your children will be grateful for that as they grow older as well.
Shygetz,
Thanks for a great post and lots of intelligent answers to other comments.
I grew up in the Bible Belt (in Dallas, TX, which is heavily Southern Baptist), the child of an atheist and an agnostic. My agnostic mom started going to a UU church when I was little, and I joined her when I was 11. I was already aware my own instincts and reasoning didn't fit in with the local versions of Christianity, and I was looking for community and shared experience with folks whose theology made more room for me and my thinking. The UU church was great for me that way. There were a few reasons:
- When I was in middle school, friends started actively trying to proselytize me. This usually started off with an invitation to their church. I had a ready reply: "Thanks, but I have a church where I go already. Maybe you'd like to visit my church sometime." That was usually enough to end those conversations.
- Direct exposure to UU ideas, including the idea that no one text can hold all important truths about the world, god(s), etc., helped when people went further in trying to sway me to their beliefs. Invariably they'd fall back on the Bible, and they were flummoxed when I told them I didn't accept the Bible, or any other book, as divine truth, so they'd have to find some other basis for argument if they wanted to convince me. I'd also learned a fair amount about the Bible (as literature important in my society), so sometimes I could match them at their own game, usually by giving them New Testament stuff in reply to their angry/jealous-God Old Testament stuff.
- And yes, community is hugely important, especially in the South where so much community is based in religious organizations. How wonderful to have a place where I could find my best friends (and very few were delinquents, though YMMV) and our shared activities didn't involved indoctrination. In anything. We were actively encouraged to consider many ways of looking at the world, including various theist views as well as atheist/humanist/agnostic views, and to develop and trust our own thinking about what was right.
- This last leads to one that some staunch atheists may disagree with, but here goes: If we want our kids to develop their critical thinking, I think this kind of build-your-own-theology (where "theology" can include atheism, etc.) approach is really valuable. Of course we can and should talk with our kids about what they're thinking, and have challenging conversations with them. But consider: as thinking people of any particular belief, is our goal to raise our children with the same beliefs we have, or to raise them to think critically and well, and to trust their own thinking? For me, it's the latter. I'd rather my daughter (now 3 and often attending UU fellowship with me) think for herself and disagree with me than agree blindly with me. I hope and believe that her early experience, at home and at church, with treating others well, respecting differences, and using reason as an important approach to the world, will inoculate her against the most intolerant and irrational forms of religion. I do believe there's a spectrum -- even some Christian churches encourage quite a bit of freethinking and regard for science. If you haven't run across them, well, maybe you should hang out in UU circles for a while. :)
As the son of two atheist parents (one also a reformed Jew) I applaud your willingness and openness about this topic. At the age of 17 I became a Christian and recovered from six years of depression. I firmly believed God helped where no one else had been able to. I think that if my parents had stifled my exploration of faith (I looked at them all and would be open to share more if would like), I would surely be dead because I was suicidal at best, homicidal at worst.
I say this because even though my parents and I still don't share the some religious beliefs, their willingness to allow me to find my own faith has overall created a stronger family. I would encourage you to do the same for your daughters. That doesn't mean that they will chose Christianity or any religion at all. But ask yourself, if they became conservative, Christian, Republicans, would you love or value them any less? I have often thought (myself being a conservative but loving all, Christian, Republican) would I love my son or daughter any less if they chose to be a liberal atheist or homosexual, would I love them less? The answer is invariably, no. It is through freedom we find room for reciprocal love.
Be blessed.
Kevin
http://journeydeeper.blogspot.com
As a former devout Christian, I have to say that religion just depresses me anymore.
I understand why people desperately want to believe - to the point where they will lie to themselves. But it makes me especially sad to realize that this poison of fantasy fiction treated as fact must be forced down the throats of children.
Shygetz:So you would have me subject my young children to community ostracism in an attempt to make some kind of social point that they are unable to understand and that will have no effect on the community as a whole?
Let me ask you this, if they become immediately ostracized because they belong to UU, will you then give up your membership in the group or not? This is not a far-fetch scenario in some surrounding counties of Athens.
Your kids and neighbors are more sophisticated than you think. They will seek labels whether you give them or not. I’m not suggesting that you are a bad parent. On the contrary, I appreciate the article because there is a UU in Athens and I have had the same thoughts. I’m merely pointing out the fact that the motivation for your behavior is questionable as mine would be. The results of your motivations are beneficial if they make you and your family happy.
Yes, [a religious identity] is almost as important an identity issue as gender (in this society). Do you deny it?
Ignoring the weasel words “almost as important,” yes, I deny it. How can I not? I don’t have a religious label and I’m a contributor to society and my mental health is good at present. My suspicion is that life without a gender “label” would be far more difficult--several orders of magnitude more challenging (not “almost” as challenging).
If so, you are going against the established opinion of experts in the field;
Reference please.
Nonetheless, you are contributing to the idea that “atheist” or “agnostic” or “freethinker” are unacceptable labels. You certainly can’t deny this.
You claim to live outside of Athens GA, and area I am quite familiar with--do you claim that religion does not play a dominant role in the culture at large in your region?
Yes. I live in the midst of it daily. I’m not sure about where you are, so it’s difficult for me to compare it to your town. Don’t get me wrong though, I absolutely love the Athens area and would never consider leaving. But what can we do to change this dominant role? Your motivations and behavior are contributing to its continued dominance.
What's the top headline today in the Athens newspaper (online edition)? I'll give you a hint--it's not "Mourners crowd park for funeral of slain student".
A truer headline would read “Mourners crowd Sunday meeting place of Athens Country Club” but that would be too honest for the ABH.
And yes, at this age it is a religious label (I never claim otherwise, and I think you are being disingenuous to claim I did), but it is not a religion.
You claim “it is a religious label, but it is not a religion.” And with that, you square the circle. And you accuse ME of being disingenuous? J’accuse.
[I]f you want to say that I'm taking advantage of three- and four-year olds' (and quite possibly some of their parents') misunderstanding of what religion is in order to give my kids a pseudo-religious identity, I'll gladly cop to that charge.
Sure, that’s the first of my two points. Now, I ask if you would like to cop to the charge that, however slightly, you are contributing to the problem while writing on the “Debunking Christianity” blog. J’accuse.
And given that you are claiming that accepting a humanistic option is somehow makes me an unprincipled parent, I would say that this question still remains for you to answer.
What are you talking about? I never claimed that accepting a humanistic option or philosophy makes you an unprincipled parent. It’s your motivation that makes your behavior unprincipled because you are attaching a pseudo-quasi-not-really-wink-wink-nudge-nudge religious label to your kids so that they can “pass” as religious to unsuspecting kids. Again, I can sympathize and this exchange is a way for me to work out some of my personal issues with doing something similar.
[T]he phrase "come to Jesus" is clearly egregiously loaded language, and quite unfair.
Guilty as charged, but I will point out that your title reads “Mr. Atheist Goes to Church.”
Had the UU congregation been unavailable or unsuitable, we probably would have gone with something along the lines of the "I am a humanist" route and see if that would stave off the issue until the kids were older.
What exactly does “stave off the issue” mean? Do you hide your atheist books when neighborhood parents or kids come in the house? Do you hide your books about evolution? In the South, you will eventually be directly questioned about your personal relationship with Jesus. I would guess your response would not look much like this site given the threat of exposing your true beliefs to your kids’ friends.
Again, were one of your children born intersexed, would you refuse gender assignment surgery so you could make a point about the bigotry of society towards gender conformity?
Nope. I think that’s a different color. You think it’s a different shade.
Tell me jim; does Santa visit your children?
Point taken, but this is not a Debunking Santa blog. We do the Santa thing. However, you are now equating Santa Claus, religion, and gender miss-assignment. Which is it? I think religious labels should be treated closer to Santa and maybe that is why I have steered clear of the UU in Athens. You believe they are “almost” as important as gender.
Until then, don't expect me to throw away my kids' happiness on a futile attempt to enact social change. Those are stakes I am unwilling to wager.
Don’t worry, I won’t ask you to hide the Jews.
Shygetz, great post. Very interesting, i've never considered joining the UU but from your description it got me thinking about atheist communities. In my life i have my work community, my friends and my family (although i live several hundred miles away from my family - in the UK thats the equivalent to the other side of the atlantic). I've had meet ups with several atheists met on boards that lived locally but never in any kind of community venture. The description of the UU forum, almost educational with a community focus seems like bliss to me.
On another note, i agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of community morality and how it stems from group thinking and evolutionary theory. I've written about this in comments here on the site before and once you examine morality like this it totally blows away theistic objective morality thinking.
Shygetz said:
Do you, as Aquinas, claim that God commands things that are good, but that good is an essential part of God's nature? That is impossible for you to know without a transcendental external standard by which to judge God, which again would render God unnecessary for morality. Aquinas was wrong, Lewis was wrong, and now you are wrong.
I know you can't see this, so you'll have to take my word for it that i am pumping my fist in the air and exclaiming "booyah!" quite loudly.
Have you ever debated publically. If your vocal presentation and arguements are half as good as your written ones, you'd be devastating. Certainly punks like Dinesh D'Souza could do with some decent coherent opponents in debate, rather than booze addled sensationalists.
Let me ask you this, if they become immediately ostracized because they belong to UU, will you then give up your membership in the group or not?...Your kids and neighbors are more sophisticated than you think. They will seek labels whether you give them or not.
jim, what part of "My kids are four and two" are you having a hard time understanding? Are you refusing to read the part where I said "Now, once the kids are old enough to learn bigotry there will be problems with my kids' UUism, but by then they will be old enough to know what bigotry is and learn something valuable from the experience, and I don't want my kids hanging out with proto-assholes anyway." or is it just inconvenient for you to acknowledge?
I’m merely pointing out the fact that the motivation for your behavior is questionable as mine would be. The results of your motivations are beneficial if they make you and your family happy.
First of all, there is nothing questionable about my motivations. Second, if the results are beneficial, what's your problem? Even rule utilitarianism posits that the principles involved are guidelines to beneficial results. Are you claiming there is a "moral imperative" to use my toddlers as wholly ineffective tools for social change?
I don’t have a religious label and I’m a contributor to society and my mental health is good at present.
I would also guess that you are not four. In fact, I would guess that you are significantly past the age where your social group is forced upon you by the vagaries of school districts. So perhaps you should concede that you are not the measure of all things. I happen to know several transgendered people; in their chosen social groups, it is not a hinderance. But then again, they are not four, a fact which you continually seem to ignore to your convenience. When they were children, their identity problems caused them much grief.
Nonetheless, you are contributing to the idea that “atheist” or “agnostic” or “freethinker” are unacceptable labels. You certainly can’t deny this.
I certainly can and do deny it, and I will thank you for refraining from trying to limit the scope of my response. Let me try this again. They. Are. Four. Years. Old. They have no idea what "atheist" "agnostic" or "freethinker" means--they only know if my child has an answer for "where do you go to church" or she doesn't (and I hope you will agree that "atheist" "agnostic" and "freethinker" are not answers to "Where do you go to church"). As I said before (multiple times) it doesn't matter what the answer is at this age (indeed, there is probably a different answer for almost every child, as the children cannot guage the magnitude of the difference between UU, First Baptist Church of Main Street, and Second Baptist Church of Main Street), just that there is one so the children can fit each other into a pattern as part of their cultural identity (everyone has a gender identity, a hair color identity, and apparently a "where do you go to church" identity). My kids are attending a congregation filled with valued atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers. They themselves are currently ignostic, and not asked to be anything different. In what way does this contribute to the notion that "atheist" "agnostic" and "freethinker" are not acceptible labels?
Reference please.
As I stated before (this seems to be forming a pattern here), my reference is wife (Ph.D. School Psychology from a well-respected and accredited program; published multiple times in the field of child cognition and Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy; postdoctoral training in counseling for child, adolescent, and family therapy in both a religious practice and a secular one; licensed to practice psychology in two states; experience working as a licensed psychologist in both private practice and government practice), personnal communication. As this is not my field of expertise, and as I have no reason to expect my wife to lie to me, this is sufficient for me. If it is not sufficient for you (understandable), find your local university and take the appropriate classes to be qualified to evaluate the research, and then do so. However, allow me to quote from course notes from FSU's course on lifespan development which goes along with the idea of religious labels as part of the categorization process:
"Third, on their own, children begin to build schema or form categories. Young children's categorical thinking is generally much more superficial and rigid than it will be later on. For example, young children may sort their toys or clothes by color and insist the arrangement could not go any other way. As noted below, children form gender identities and sex stereotypes before preschool age. Initial gender categories tend to be relatively rigid, and, in fact, children may describe their parents along stereotyped lines even though these descriptions may be highly erroneous...Gender identity is just one form of identity; most of us have many identities. By the time we start elementary school, we may have a religious identity, an ethnic identity, a community identity, to name a few. Why are these identities important? First, identity serves as a cognitive organizing mechanism." (emphasis in original)
These course notes support the ideas cited by my wife the expert; children at this age are highly interested in categorization for organizing cognitive function. However, peer out-groups are fluid at this age (if your kids are like mine, they have a new best friend every week)--what is most important is that the child fits within his/her peers in their cognitive categorization structure. And, as you have conceeded earlier, in many parts of the SE US, religion is a large and obvious part of cultural identity. Does it surprise you that something that is such a large and obvious part of cultural identity becomes part of the child's categorization?
But what can we do to change this dominant role? Your motivations and behavior are contributing to its continued dominance.
So you argue that by allowing my daughter to be ostracized for not having any religious identity label (not just not having the right label, mind you, but for not having any label at all), I will contribute somehow to the elimination of religion as a dominant force in the Southeast; moreover, by sending my children to a humanist congregation, I am contributing to maintain the establishment of religion as a dominant force. Furthermore, you argue that my usage of my children as tools of social action will be substantial enough to outweigh the negative effects that refraining from both the label and the community will have on them. And how exactly do you claim that works? Remember--They. Are. Four.
A truer headline would read “Mourners crowd Sunday meeting place of Athens Country Club” but that would be too honest for the ABH.
Followed by...You claim “it is a religious label, but it is not a religion.” And with that, you square the circle. And you accuse ME of being disingenuous? J’accuse.
So let me get this straight. You want to accuse me of misdeeds for differentiating between religious identity labels (which are simply a categorization tool and have nothing to do with actual belief) and actual religions (which, at least in my usage of the word, requires belief in a deity), yet you claim a Methodist church would be more honestly called the "Sunday meeting place of Athens Country Club", in the midst of this somehow missing the irony of these two statements in juxtaposition. The mind boggles.
Look, do you deny that UUism is a religious identity label (at least to my four-year old's peer group, which is the context of this entire post)? I should hope not, as they seem to think it is. Let's assume that you admit it is (unless you wish to demand affadavits from my daughter's friends testifying to their satisfaction, I think I must insist that I have better knowledge on this score than you, having actually met and spoken with both my daughter and her friends). Do you claim that UUism requires belief in a deity? I should hope not, as that would be counterfactual and I stand as a counterexample. Are you are arguing that my usage of the phrase "religion" to exclude systems that have no deity is incorrect? As I defined my usage clearly in the text where I used it, I do not feel guilty of this at all. Given those three premises as factual, it is not inconsistent to state that something may serve as a religious identity label without being a religion. Your accusation is either meritless on its face, or mere semantics against a word defined in the original text and therefore meritless.
It’s your motivation that makes your behavior unprincipled because you are attaching a pseudo-quasi-not-really-wink-wink-nudge-nudge religious label to your kids so that they can “pass” as religious to unsuspecting kids. Again, I can sympathize and this exchange is a way for me to work out some of my personal issues with doing something similar.
It is not so they can pass as religious. Honestly, do you think most four-year olds even know what the word "religion" means? No, no more than most of them know the real differences between boys and girls, and I certainly haven't taught my children about X and Y chromosomes.
It is a pattern of categories into which they see their world divided. When children of that age encounter something that does not fit into their pattern, it makes them uncomfortable (one big reason why environmental stability is considered so important to children of that age). It does not matter if the label is a true religion; it only matters that it fits into the pattern. Once the kids know what a religion is, as I said before, UUism will be a problem with some of them. Now, not having a label is discomforting to all of them that think religious identity is part of the pattern that people fall into.
Guilty as charged, but I will point out that your title reads “Mr. Atheist Goes to Church.”
"Mr. Atheist Goes to Church" + "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" = humor.
What exactly does “stave off the issue” mean? Do you hide your atheist books when neighborhood parents or kids come in the house? Do you hide your books about evolution?
"Stave off the issue" means "Resolve the identity label problem with a pseudo-label until such time as my child understands what religion is." My atheist book (I only have one because I happen to like the authors' writing style and we have a nice community and university library; how many does one need?) are right next to my Bibles and my copy of the Tanakh. My evolution books are in my office, where they would find the most use.
I will state again...They. Are. Four. They are incapable of even sounding out the words to most book titles, much less understanding the contents. This has nothing to do with their parents intolerance much less their own intolerance, this has to do with their categorization of the people in the society they find themselves in. If I hadn't wanted to tout my beliefs as at the very least heretical, I would not have joined a UU congregation.
I would guess your response would not look much like this site given the threat of exposing your true beliefs to your kids’ friends.
I insist that you either leave off from trying to read my mind as to what I will and will not do, or claim Randi's prize for your miraculous abilities. In your attempts to insult me by placing your thoughts in my head, words in my mouth, and actions at my hands, you come off looking childish.
It is true that I do not walk around my neighborhood asking people if they are Christian and berating those that say they are (and anyone who does so deserves a punch in the nose). However, neither do I pretend that my family and I are believers. Did you not read the part where I said I lived in a diverse neighborhood with a Muslim family on one side and an Asian family (of unknown religious affiliation) on the other? I have little worry of being driven out by rabid proselytizing Christians; if we non-Christians don't have them outnumbered in my subdivision, it is close enough to put the contest in doubt.
Nope. I think that’s a different color. You think it’s a different shade.
It is the same principle that you insist I am violating (unless you don't believe that gender identity is entitled to equal regard just as religious identity is). Just because you think that the ostracization would be of a different degree does not change the principle in question, it just changes your cost/benefit analysis.
Do you claim to be in a better position to judge the costs and benefits to my family than me? It doesn't seem that you are saying that; your argument has been that my motivation to avoid societal ostracization of my children for lack of a religious label is betraying the principle of equal regard for non-belief (although you did once mention consequences, you never specified those consequences nor refer to them again, so I will take that as an aberration). In the same manner, your motivation to avoid societal ostracization of your children for lack of a gender label is betraying the principle of equal regard for all gender identities. Je vous accuse.
Point taken, but this is not a Debunking Santa blog. We do the Santa thing. However, you are now equating Santa Claus, religion, and gender miss-assignment. Which is it?
UUism is not Christianity, so the title of this blog is equally irrelevant to my post. Comparing (I am not equating; I am analogizing issues with highly similar principles at stake) religious identity, gender identity (not misassignment, but failure to fit into the standard categories of "male" and "female" for intersex children), and participation in the Santa myth as part of a cultural identity are NOT mutually exclusive, resulting in you offering a false dilemma.
I think religious labels should be treated closer to Santa and maybe that is why I have steered clear of the UU in Athens.
Yet you just said, and I quote, We do the Santa thing. So you steer clear of UUism, but for some reason you tell your children that a mythical man watches their actions all year, rides flying reindeer, and sneaks into their home to leave them gifts. Why? If I may guess, I imagine it is one or both of the following reasons.
1.) You and/or your wife grew up with the Santa myth and found it valuable and harmless
2.) You and/or your wife think that Santa non-belief would cause your child to be ostracized from his/her peers
1) is a subjective argument for most religions--not doing you any favors there. 2) is a similar argument I am making for UUism, with one important difference--I would argue that Santa belief is more in violation of your prinicple than UUism because Santa belief explicitly requires belief in something that is not true. UUism explicitly does NOT; it is simply a group identification with no belief required (or encouraged). Yet you have no problem encouraging belief in a false myth while deriding disbelief because it joined a group of similar non-believers because we found value in the community and we found value in having our children fit into the prevailing social categorization scheme for their peer group . It is an apparently hypocritical position--why do you hold it?
Is there a 3) that I am leaving out? If so, please enlighten me. If not, then are you not being irrational in either your promotion of Santa myth belief or your unacceptance of UUism as a non-religious religious identity?
Don’t worry, I won’t ask you to hide the Jews.
Loaded language, false equivalence. You trying to hit all of the fallacies? In addition, your violation of Godwin's Law has just conceded the argument as well as shown you to be a bastard who argues in bad faith. Show me one person being mudered, tortured, or even looked at funny because my family joined the UU congregation. You can't because they don't exist. In fact, you cannot name a single instance of harm that has come or has a strong liklihood of possibly coming as a result of my family joining the UU congregation. All you can point to is some nebulous principle of yours that you yourself violate in your promotion of Santa belief. And you have the nerve to equate someone else's violation of your principle that you violate yourself at whim with the wholesale slaughter of millions of Jews! As the husband of a Jew, father of Jews, and the grandson-in-law of Eastern European Jews who fled just ahead of the Panzertruppen, you can kiss all of my ass. You just used up whatever good will and understanding I may have been willing to lend you previously, and will not be given the assumption of good faith again unless you earn it.
Am I the only one who finds it sublimely ironic that I as a freethinker am being chided for doctrinal impurity by another "freethinker"? Have you set up some kind of atheist dogma that we all should be following? Are you printing up an atheist hymnal next? Are you as the Atheist Pope just trying to keep up with the Catholic Pope in declaring new mortal sins?
Until you can at least uphold your nebulous principle yourself, it is insulting to expect others to uphold it. If you expect otherwise, you would be more comfortable in a fundamentalist church; they seem to have no problem with hypocrisy in their leaders.
@shygetz, Thanks again for posting a fascinating article and for a spirited defense of it. Somehow the discussion has become derailed - probably because I'm an ass. Anyway, I have learned much from our discussion and it has caused me to rethink my stance.
Best regards.
Shygetz,
Great post, as all of yours generally are. Regarding the antics of Jim, let me relate a story that comes from years of attendance at AA meetings. Coming to the conclusion that my original thinking (which equated getting sober making all folks nothing but sweetness and light) was rubbish, I asked an "old-timer" how I could have been so misguided. He smiled and said something to this effect: "once a dick, always a dick". My experience since becoming a non-believer is parallel. Also, I second what Oli said, you must have been on the debate team in school, no? If not, what a loss for your alma mater.
I'll be dipped. We started going to our local Unitarian Universalist church two weeks ago.
Like you, we're in a Southern University town (Nashville, TN). Our daughter (youngest, the oldest is in college) is constantly asked what faith she is (she's an ATHIEST) and would struggle to come up with a church to satisfy her peers.
Also, I do have fond memories of growing up in a church. Heck, I was even studying to be a minister when it occurred to me that most of these stories about my faith were bullshit. From there the whole tapestry unravelled when I figured out it was all bullshit. But, I did enjoy myself up until that time.
So, it's nice to go to church. To not sing (because I suck completely) but lip-sync the songs. To talk about stuff. To enjoy the fellowship of people who actually don't have a religious stick 10' long up their ass.
jim, I hope to meet again under better circumstances. Best of luck with your decisions.
oli and bloviator, thanks for the kind sentiments. My high school did not have a debate team. Livestock and dairy judging teams, yes. Debate, not so much. Given my profession (scientist) I have had a lot of experience defending my arguments in print. My only experience in an oral format is in Q&A sessions that come after my seminars and presentations. In such settings, the presenter usually has a distinct advantage, in that s/he is by far the biggest expert on the topic in the world (or at least s/he should be if s/he talking about it). Given my inexperience and my tendencies as a scientist, I would probably come off as dry in any oral debate, and I would probably use too much detail and too many caveats. Scientists usually make poor formal debaters; our training and professional ethics are almost opposite those of trial lawyers, politicians, and other professional debaters.
Hey, I'm an atheist who's been attending the local UU congregation sporadically (the leader is an old college bud).
Is it a conversion? I don't think so. UUs don't insist on labels, and insist on everyone making their own personal journey to meaning. I like the "joys and concerns" part, the singing not so much, but overall it's a nice way to share one's life journey with others going on their own path.
Thing is, though, I don't really feel the need to identify as "UU", and I guess the UU ethic would agree with me on that.
"See I believe in miracles. The first miracle was that you even noticed your daughter and cared to do something about it."
Gah.. I'm new here and was just reading and was floored by how insulting this was. I don't know if it was intended that way, but wow.
jahandar, I'm with you. I did a spit-take when I read that comment. I decided to give the commenter the benefit of the doubt and assume that the comment was not meant as an insult, but was just unfortunately worded.
Can we get a support group together for Atheists attending Liberal Protestant Churches? I don't know if the UU guys would need a group but I have to say that it is nice to know that I am not the only one going through this.
I did not attend my wife's UMC until our children became school aged. There was an implicit agreement that if Mom would take the kids to church, we would raise them nominally Christian. Dad would have an opportunity to share his views at the appropriate time (still waiting for THAT to happen!)
Three years ago I started attending the church myself and now tithe (but have not "joined") As JJ said, the choirs tend to be good and musically challenging.
In addition to an effort to present a unified front to my son and daughter, I go for the community. The necessity of this is reinforced by my study of the Generational Theory of US history wherein social institutions rarely outlast the living memory of those who saw them founded. Thus the New Deal is in its senescence and the tearing down of the Old and ushering of the New will be a painful process. The take-away from this is that we will all need as strong a social network as we can gather around us and, in the Bible Belt, there is none stringer than a large and active church.
God, how I struggle with some of those sermons. There are Sunday mornings when I just want to leap up from the choir loft and scream, "That is simply not true!"
It would be a dis-service to society and science and facts if you truly believed in the bible, I dont know about god I do know that an all caring all powerful being is very irrational on many levels, morally, hypothetically, scientifically, mathematically, and I am sure many other areas, I understand your love for you child, but we dont give our kids cake all day long either, there is a line between love and wanting them to be happy and being a responsible parent. Would you lie to your child about something that would alter how they live their life just to be happy or fit in, or better yet what you think would make them happy or fit in.
Don't fall into the christian trab of god is using "so and so" to effect you, its emotion and nothing more, if god cared he would of told people to wash their hands thousands of years ago and much more.
Peace be with you live life right this is your only chance. :)
Post a Comment