I never did tell you about the article I wrote for the Humanist Network News back in March for their Secular Parenting column. Here’s how it starts…

The “Out” Parent

I walked into my child’s preschool one day right before class was to let out. There was a lobby full of parents and one of them raised her voice above the crowd to say to me, “I noticed your license plate says AGMOM. What does that mean?”

Those of you who have read my articles or blog will recognize it as my blog name, Agnostic Mom. While most of my friends know about this, it wasn’t something I wanted to shout across a crowded room of parents at my child’s preschool. Yet there they all were, staring at me, curious.

Would you like to read the rest of the story? Then please click here.

If you’re newer to Agnostic Mom and would like to read all of my articles when I had a regular column with them, you might want to head over to this page.

The Podcast

Tomorrow on Chuck Bryant’s Something Happening Here podcast, an interview with me will air. I’ll be back to link to it, but I thought I’d give you a heads up…you know, since I’m not around so much lately. =)

You might want to check out his site and show by then, too.

I have long expressed that empathy is a key factor in a person’s morality. Empathy is a state that the human brain evolved a capacity for. Guilt is another. Our social upbringing also comes into play, but only because an ability to experiences these things first evolved within the brain.

Gregg100 sent me a link to an article that tells of a recent study on this subject. I’ve pulled out a few statements that summarize the main points of the article but I recommend you read the whole thing so you know the specifics and the limitations to how far the study extends.

Damage to the part of the brain that controls social emotions changes the way people respond to thorny moral problems, demonstrating the role of empathy and other feelings in life-or-death decisions.

“Part of our moral behavior is grounded … in a specific part of our brains,” said Dr. Antonio Damasio, one of the study’s lead authors and director of the Brain and Creativity Institute at USC.

The ventromedial prefrontal cortex processes feelings of empathy, shame, compassion and guilt. Damage to this part of the brain, which occupies a small region in the forehead, causes a diminished capacity for social emotions but leaves logical reasoning intact.

Researchers found no difference among groups in their responses to scenarios with no moral content, such as turning a tractor left to harvest turnips.

This study is not in isolation. Without even looking for them I come across studies with similar or related conclusions quite regularly. The conclusions have perspective-altering implications that might challenge the way religious believers expect their god to hold people accountable for their “sins.” Or the way societies deal with criminals. Such implications and how we should deal with them are complicated. But I think this is an extremely important area to learn more about if we are ever going to understand human nature and hope for a more peaceful world.

I was really nervous about the social implications when I stopped going to the Mormon church and became an atheist/agnostic. The religion I came from forces you to make a choice: Either come out of the closet so you can live your life the way you think is appropriate, or stay hidden and live the rules of the Mormon Church. I came out of the closet because my sister was about to get married in the LDS (Mormon) temple. You have to hold what is called a “recommend” in order to go in. My recommend had expired during the time that I was trying to figure out my beliefs. I could not get a new one and keep my integrity in tact because you must proclaim your belief that Jesus is the Christ and Joseph Smith was his prophet in order to do so.

By the time of the wedding I had confirmed to myself that I was not a believer. Rather than lie, I decided to tell my family that I would not be going through the temple for the wedding and the reason was that I no longer believed the church was true. And in fact, I was an atheist. (I called myself an atheist before I decided to call myself an agnostic. To me it is all semantics and a bit problematic). I suppose I didn’t have to tell the reasons why, but it has never been in my nature to act like someone I am not. I was never shy about being a Mormon and I am not shy about being agnostic.

Of course, telling my parents was one of the hardest things to do. They didn’t take it well. But after four and a half years they have seen that I am not backing down, they have seen that my children continue to hold excellent standards and principles, they have seen that I have a presence in the secular/humanist community, and they have seen that I am happy and non-disruptive to their religious lives. It has gotten better with them year after year and I now feel mostly satisfied with where we are in our relationship.

When I left religion, I also felt a need to tell my current friends. One reason was because I held many leadership positions, never missed church, and was very involved. The other was because Mormons have strict rules about clothing; rules which are absurd for people in desert climates to abide by. I was happy to be able to dress in less constricting clothes that were much more appropriate. But it was a shock to all my friends for me to suddenly expose my shoulders. It may seem silly to someone who is not from the Mormon culture, but it is scandalous for a Mormon not to abide by the dress code if they once had. People usually suspect that marriage infidelity led to the change.

So, it was awkward in the beginning feeling compelled to announce my change to my friends at their first sight of me in un-Mormonish clothing. I didn’t want them to assume the wrong things about me. The revelation of my non-belief shocked and hurt them. I received many warnings from people who had “gone astray” at one time and and regretted it. Still, as awkward as it was, I think is beneficial. It is beneficial to our community because it spreads the word that nontheists are normal people. It is beneficial to ourselves because 1) It takes us out of our comfort zone, and that is always healthy! 2) It frees us up to be who we are and not have to hide.

Thankfully, I am past that phase now, of having to come out to current friends who had always known me as religious. My main interaction now is with people who never knew me as Mormon. For them it is only about discovering that I don’t believe in any religion, period. And that is a whole different situation. We’ll come to that in a separate post.

We had a lot of fun. I painted bricks onto two panels of paper that I hung in the archway from the living room to the kitchen. As each guest arrived, Blake escorted them to the brick wall, did the magical tapping on appropriate bricks, and then led his guests through the panels. Once inside the magical world of Hogwart’s School (in our kitchen and backyard), Blake let the guests choose from a tray of various wands. Then he put the sorting hat on each guest to hear the announcement of which house (team) that guest would be a part of. My husband recorded the voice of the actual sorting hat from the movie into his lap top and pushed play when the guests put on the sorting hat. The boys loved this! It produced laughter every time.

When most of the guests had arrived we began playing a modified version of Quidditch, then a game between dragons and humans where the humans dodged dragons to steal their golden eggs (chocolate).

The best part for me was the potion class. I put three flavors of Kool-Aid in various shaped jars and containers and as I brought them out I told the kids that the red was Dragon Tears, the purple was Extract of Pituitary, and the green was Sleeping Potion. I also put out bowls of Bloodworms (gummi worms) and Beazles (jelly beans). The boys were hysterical with this! Never did I hear the words, punch or Kool-Aid, come out of their mouths. It was all potion to them. And they thought their own combinations were amazing! I’ve never seen kids drink so much!

They took their drinks to the dining table I set up on the patio under the glow of white Christmas lights. I covered the table with a purple table cloth and laid diamonds of gold wrapping paper as placemats. I set gothic-type center pieces along the table to give it an old and formal feel, like the dining hall in Harry Potter.

Instead of bags of candy and little toys for the party favors, I found 100-piece jigsaw puzzles with dragons and knights at the dollar stores. I wrapped the puzzles in brown paper and sent them home as their thank-you gifts. What a fun night!

Many of the ideas for this party came from www.amazingmoms.com on their Harry Potter page.

I explained to Blake that this was a club for children whose parents actually believe that the stories in the Bible were all real. I disappointed him with the news that this club was not the right one for him.

And then came the interesting part. He said, “Do you know that all three of the kids at my table believe in God?” Now I was really interested in this conversation. How did he come upon this information? And why was he so surprised?

He continued, “I said, ‘So who here believes in God?’ And they all said they did!”

“And what did you say?” I asked.

“I said, ‘I don’t.’”

I was getting nervous now but didn’t want him to know it. If I acted anxious, or began giving him warnings, would he learn to feel ashamed? But is it okay for an atheist or agnostic child to just bring the conversation up, as many Christian children do? I have always told him that if friends want to talk to him about God, or heaven and hell, that it is appropriate to say that our family doesn’t believe in that. But here he is now, in school, introducing the topic.

I asked him, “Then what did your friends do?” Apparently one gave a loud exhale of disbelief and another let his jaw drop to the table. But that was it. Thankgoodness. So far it’s been a couple weeks there has been no fallout.

So here is a discussion topic for you. Would you give your child a gentle warning that some parents don’t want their kids around people who don’t believe as they do? Do you think it is inappropriate for a child of atheists or agnostics to ever bring up the subject? Or do you let them do their thing because they really should have that right, as children of Christians do, even though it may lead them to a friendless path?

I have a feeling that, like most instances in dealing with children, your kids did not portray the real picture of the situation. What I imagine really happened is that your kids saw your relatives praying and asked why they were doing so and that is when your sis-in-law made the comment about prayer. I really wish that you would talk to your relatives about what happened (it does not sound like you did) before painting this most-likely inaccurate picture to all of your readers. Kids perception often differs from reality.

Your post about the situation was polite and respectful but still it may have painted an inaccurate picture and your readers took it negatively even though you tried not to portray it that way.

How absurd that someone like me, a skeptic even about ideas that support my own beliefs, did not consider this possibility. Sadie’s analysis never even occurred to me and it seemed she might be right. Frankly, after reading her comment, I still didn’t want to approach my sister-in-law about the situation because it did not bother me so much; I didn’t want to make her uncomfortable and have her associate negativity with having watched our kids when we were so pleased with the experience.

I have a couple principles I try to follow when it comes to relationships. If a person’s actions offend me and there is no previous pattern for the offensive behavior, then there is a high likelihood of a misunderstanding. I believe the healthiest choices in such a case are to either give that person the benefit of the doubt and disregard it, or, if nagging negative emotions arise and persist, to approach the person and give them a chance to explain. More often than not, when there has been no previous pattern of such offending behavior, I find there was just a misunderstanding.

It turns out that this is the case with my sister-in-law. When Sadie suggested I didn’t have the full story, I realized she was probably correct. My sister-in-law has never been one to interfere. I decided it made the most sense to assume that my kids had first asked her why she prayed.

When discussion continued on my blog about what may or may not have happened, I decided to pursue the matter and ask Blake. Blake confirmed that Trinity had, in fact, asked her the question. He said that their aunt was not trying to teach them to pray and he seemed perplexed that I was even asking.

I don’t like that I mis-portrayed my sister-in-law and I think it is an example of dealing with relationships where these types of misunderstandings are likely to occur when there are religious differences.

I also wanted to clear up what I saw as a misconception from Wendy, who left a comment that I accidentally deleted. Wendy seems to think I object to a “sharing of beliefs” (if, in fact, I understood her comment). I welcome the sharing of beliefs. I have always been interested in religions of all types, Christianity or otherwise, and I want my children to know about others’ religious beliefs.

What I have a problem with is when any adult teaches something to a child that contradicts with the parents’ beliefs. This is especially hard in a place where one major religion is the default belief-system and a majority of the people assume that you either do, or should, believe in it also.

My kids practically swim in other people’s beliefs about God and that is okay, as long as people do not cross the boundaries between comparing beliefs to help in understanding, and trying to convert my kids.

Likewise, contrary to what I think Wendy implied in the comment that is forever gone, I do not teach nor allow my children to “make fun” of other people because of their beliefs. But when someone asserts that my child will go to “the worst imaginable hell,” as Blake’s friend did, I think it is helpful to giggle about it with my son when the friend is not there and assure my son that that is absurd. If a person wants to be so insistent with ideas that I believe are emotionally abusive, then I have the right to help my child feel better by lightening the situation. I will not apologize for that.

Also, some religious beliefs, like talking donkeys or a woman made from a man’s rib, just naturally inspires a giggle in someone who was not raised around such stories. When this occurs in the privacy of our own home, I will not apologize for that either. I am sure there are plenty of families who laugh at the ideas of evolution. While I think that is ignorant, I don’t find it at all offensive. It’s just natural.

Giggling in private about such a belief is not the same thing as making fun of someone, which I have never seen my kids do. And there have been plenty of opportunities, considering how often people like to “share.”

I did not expect my children to receive a personal lesson, intimate instruction just for them, on why they should pray.

Let me first qualify this post with the explanation that, prayer-lesson or no prayer-lesson, I am so thankful for my brother and sister-in-law who cared for my three children (and our dog) for four long days. They refused the money we tried to pay them. They brought bags of games and activities. They made homemade play dough. They’re both mathematicians and taught the kids math.

We also came home to an immaculate and happy household. A spotless house on the return from a trip is highly unusual.

So please don’t mistake my story for a gripe. It is a story to share. I’d lose at least half my readers if I only talked about science and didn’t share my personal stories.

It wasn’t until we’d been home for a few days when Trinity informed us that their aunt taught them at a meal that, “we should always pray so that we can thank Heavenly Father for the food he gave us.”

I stopped what I was doing. I exchanged looks with my husband. And I noticed that Blake was watching me, waiting for a response.

I smiled at Trinity and asked her, “Does Heavenly Father give us our food? Or does Daddy work really hard everyday so that he can earn the money for us to buy our food?”

Trinity’s big, cute smile appeared and her giggly voice belted, “Daddy!” Her expression was as if to exasperate a comment like, “How obvious!”

I laughed with her and was glad to see how easy it can be sometimes to demonstrate reality to children.

Of course, I had to wonder if my in-law thinks we believe in prayer but are lazy and just never took the time to teach our kids about it. Or did she make the conscious decision to teach my children a concept she knows we reject?

I used to dwell on these types of experiences and let them work on my emotions and patience. In addition to my personal frustrations at such an invasion, I also worried that lessons of this nature would influence or confuse my children.

In the past year I have learned not to worry so much about these types of actions from others. They’re quite entertaining. I also realize that my own words, along with the reality that the kids observe around them, hold much more sway than the religious-speak of others. Though sometimes the kids are unsure and want to hear my opinion, they often think the religious statements people make are down-right absurd.

When the kids pass along another person’s admonitions that they should pray, a simple reinforcement from me such as, “Well, that’s their religion,” seems to be enough most of the time and they dismiss the idea.

In fact it was just yesterday that Blake’s friend (who I am distancing Blake from because his rude behavior hit its peak when I heard him make reference to certain anatomy on his mother) tried to convince Blake to become a Christian immediately after Blake told him I didn’t want them to play together any more. Blake giggled as he restated to me his friend’s lesson about the best heaven and the worst hell you can possibly imagine.

I realize these outpourings from the religious are inevitable. They will continue to happen. Now that I have observed my children’s confidence in their family’s beliefs and non-beliefs, I can look on these attempts with a little more humor and a lot less outrage.

I have an idea of what you can do to celebrate it. Some of my articles are now up and running on ClubMom. You can rate them and leave comments at the end of each article. All of them have appeared on this blog at some point but I have edited the ClubMom versions. Some have only slight changes while others are very different.

Make your statement to the mainstream folks by rating my articles and leaving a comment about why these topics are important to you!

Note: If you want to find my articles from the homepage, look under the main box to find the button, “Expert Writers.” Then click on “Religion and Beliefs” (yes, that is how they classified me) for a list of all the writers in that area. Scroll down until you find me, Noell Hyman.

Ben is right. Religious leaders did (do) not just throw a dart on the wall to randomly pick rules of conduct. But many of the rules sure seem arbitrary, especially when you see headlines like this one from the Los Angeles Times:

“Reverend equates kneeling at wrong time to ‘mortal sin.’”

Surely there is more to this story than what the title says, I thought when I saw it.

Well, there is! It’s not just a story of one power-hungry ecclesastical leader who believes that kneeling during the service “is clearly rebellion, grave disobedience and mortal sin.”

The Diocese of Orange is in on it, too! There are two of them!

According to the article, members of a dozen different U.S. parishes are committing a mortal sin RIGHT IN CHURCH despite the Vatican’s new instructions of four years ago allowing bishops to play god to decide whether worshippers should kneel or not.

The article begins, “At a small Catholic church in Huntington Beach, the pressing moral question comes to this: Does kneeling at the wrong time during worship make you a sinner?”

What lies at the heart of this problem is change of time and culture. What may have seemed appropriate at one time in one culture can be inappropriate to another because of customs and associations.

And I’d add the power-hungry need to control dominions is also responsible for the standing dilemma.

So while rules of conduct may have made sense at one particular time in history and were not actually arbitrary at conception, they can sure appear arbitrary to an outsider. At the very least, they become meaningless over time. This is especially problematic since we have become a global society. Many of the rules of various sects conflict with each other.

Plus, some people become obsessed with rules. Why is the pressing moral question of any group something as miniscule as kneeling versus standing? Are there not more critical crises to worry about?

Many people lose sight of what is important because they are so worried about the rules.

And it is not just specific rules that cause a problem. Even more general principles about lying, gossiping, “going the extra mile,” etc. can, in certain situations, do more harm than good when we place them in a context of morality. We have to make all kinds of exceptions for those principles.

For example, we have no qualms about publicizing the residence of a child molester even though to do so is public gossip that causes real social and financial harm to the perpetrator. How do we justify this gossip when religion says gossip is a sin? Because it helps decrease instances of even worse harm to innumerable innocent children.

Even not-so public gossip can be important and helpful in personal situations and small group communities.

These rules, and even principles, do not stand the test of time or specific situations.

This is why I propose a system for morality that is based on situational analysis rather than rules.

We can teach our children to use their powers of reason and empathy to evaluate whether their choices would increase overall happiness or pain. Including their own. (There is a balance).

So going back to the topic of this post: Religious ideas of morality can become irrelvant and meaningless. But was my use of the word “arbitrary” inaccurate, as Ben suggested? I think so.

Can anyone come up with a better way to phrase it so I can improve my article (before I submit it to ClubMom)?

Leave your ideas (about a better word choice, or about the concepts of this blog entry in general) in a comment, please!

We’ve gone into some more complicated specifics and I feel I the need to break my system down into its smallest parts. Please excuse the nature of this post as it is more of a brainstorm than a concise article.

I think there is some confusion between what I am trying to say and what I am NOT trying to say. Maybe I can clear it up.

What do I mean when I refer to right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral? And what about that extreme word, “evil?”

Wrong: Causing another person unnecessary pain or increasing the amount of pain and suffering in the world.
Bad: Causing another person unneccessary pain or increasing the amount of pain and suffering in the world.
Evil: Causing another person an excruciating and horrific amount of unnecessary pain or increasing the amount of pain and suffering in the world.
Immoral: Knowing you are causing another person unnecessary pain or increasing the amount of pain and suffering in the world. And doing it anyway when you have a choice to do otherwise.
Right, Good, and Moral: The opposite of the above.

I did NOT say anything about violating the laws of a diety, nor did I say anything about a universal “force” of good. I don’t believe in either one. Morality comes from our ability to perceive, reason, analyze and be aware of others.

In the tradition of Existentialism and materialistic thought, it all breaks down to this:
We exist.
We can have pain and suffering. We can have happiness, peace, and joy.
We have the capacity for empathy: we are aware of others’ pain and suffering.
Morality and ethics are about experiencing happiness in ways that do not unnecessarily add pain to the world or others.

I am NOT saying that we have the ability to do this perfectly. I am not saying that there are not times when it is impossible. I am not saying that life is simple and without tricky dilemmas. The system is still the most reliable.

We need to nurture empathy to be able to better recognize pain and suffering in others.
We need to nurture wisdom to better recognize HOW to avoid causing pain.

What else did I NOT say? I did not give a list of specific rules regarding what I think is right and wrong. Religion does that. There are major problems with trying to tell others what actions are right or wrong (what I call “Rules for Morality”):

1. Life is far too complex to reduce every varying situation into an absolute list. For example, sometimes it is moral to be dishonest (think Holocaust, the Underground Railroad). Therefore, dishonesty, in and of itself, is not bad.

2. Science continues to discover new facts, so we must always be open to reevaluating our understanding and assumptions. For example, do chickens feel pain when we kill them for food? Do their fellow siblings miss them when they are gone? If science can conclude that the answer to both questions is no (and that is my understanding, but I am not sure), then MAYBE it is not immoral to eat them. Unless we find that chickens are more like us than we thought. Well, then it might be moral to learn to use tofu!

3. Cause and Effect is too vast for us to accurately draw absolute conclusions. For example, Hifi and Ron talked about how our economic structure, and most everything that we buy, relies on the pain and suffering of others (for example, child slavery, but go read the comments of the above post to see the specifics).

It would seem like the moral thing to do would be to only buy organic and grow your own food, make your own material and clothing, abstain from driving cars, and a whole number of other things. At least this is what Hifi and Ron both hinted at. Perhaps in another post or comment I will explain why I think this action will cause greater pain and suffering, while also not fixing the situation. Maybe at some point I will explain why I think there is a more effective approach to changing the system, one that already seems to be pushing things in the right direction (albeit at a slow pace). And if that is so, then THAT would be the more appropriate choice. (I don’t want to get off on a tangent by delving into that here).

But maybe I am wrong on the moral dilemma of buying the products of child slaves. Once I share my understanding with you, maybe you can enlighten me on why I am wrong.

Does this exemplify why I am not trying to outline a list of specific rights and wrongs?

I do not believe in Moral Relativism. There is one principle that stands true and transcends all cultures and religions: It is immoral to cause unnecessary pain and suffering in the world. This is the one moral absolute that exists and this absolute is not relative. All others are just RULES for morals that could be wrong depending on the situations. This is why I am a proponent of Situational Ethics.

When evaluating the ethics or morality of a certain action, we do not need a handbook of right and wrong. We must individually measure it by the one absolute I have outlined: Does it cause unnecessary pain and suffering? You and I may come up with different answers. That is okay with me. We also may not always have the willpower, or even the ability, to choose that action we think is right. The important thing is the general direction we are going.

Okay, now that I have outlined my views in their most basic form, does this clarify the topic or muddle it? What are your thoughts now?

Have you heard of ClubMom.com? It’s a mainstream mother’s website, an affiliate of momcentral.com, which has a new spot on the Today Show called, Parent Central. ClubMom has three million subscribers.

Thanks to my editor, Duncan Crary of the Humanist News Network, ClubMom has asked me to become an “Expert Writer” for the website. According to our agreement, I will be providing them with 25 prewritten articles (the “non-attacking” stuff you read here and in my HNN column) over the next month or so.

They said they love the unusual niche (and my writing) regarding parents who want to raise their families without religion. They said they see a need for this!

The “Expert Writers” are pre-published book authors, professional writers who ClubMom compensates with publicity. They made an exception for AgnosticMom, a non-professional, non-book author, because they like the topic! I think we’re making a little headway here.

May 4th, Thursday, was the National Day of Prayer.

While The Atheist Mama and I don’t always agree on certain philosophies or tactics of social action, she brought this day to my attention, and in this case, we came up with the same idea: to make it a day of action.

I had planned to declare May 4th a Humanist Day of Action. I had ideas, and meant to write an entry last week, right after my Public Image Makeover posts. But what often happens when I have ideas? Other urgent items get in my way.

So we’re forgetting about my ideas for now and maybe I’ll get to it on time next year!

If you’re interested in continuing the thread on public image and “campaign” strategies, here is a topic to debate between ourselves: Should we fight to remove crosses with historical significance for a city?

Hifi provided this link about the Mount Soledad cross in San Diego. An atheist has been fighting to have it removed from city property for 15 years and has finally won.

Is this a fight worth fighting? I would say it definitely is if they were erecting a new cross. What about a historical one? I haven’t decided. What are your thoughts?

I thought I’d start off with a bit of drama. Just to get your attention.

We can find a legitimate answer by taking the emotion out of it and giving it a good analysis. Do they hate us, or do they FEAR us? And do they fear us, as individuals, or US as a whole?

AgnosticMom reader, Hifi, twice emphasized an important distinction we have to remember as we discuss how to improve our atheist/agnostic image:

Speaking of the UofM study about the negative view and distrust Americans have for atheists one commentator had this to say, “Agnostics like myself…would very much like to be considered full citizens and participate in American public life. The study found that “negative views about atheists are strong,” but that “survey respondents were not, on the whole, referring to actual atheists they had encountered.”

I reiterate my earlier statement, “In that light, personal revelations will do little to change the dominant view of atheists as the least trusted demographic in America – including the way our friends vote on religious issues. The last thing they will do is consider how promotion of religion by government is going to affect us.”

While you and I may be (or become) successful at winning our neighbors’ hearts, friendship, and even trust, it’s an entirely different story if we are ever to consider a fellow secularist gaining the presidency, or even lower-level government position. A successful “coming-out-of-the-closet” will hardly help us make gains when it comes to public policy that affects us.

It is time to dissect the problem. What do they fear about a secular society and secular influence? I think it is three things.

1) They fear the “removal of God” from the public domain as an abandonment of God, which will result in either his wrath, or in a loss of his protection.
2) They think anger motivates us more than charity, and fear a loss of goodness and good actions.
3) They fear a decrease in morality in our country.

It is the bottom two fears that we have the most control over. If we focus our efforts to improve our image in these two areas first, if we can convince the religious public that the non-religious can maintain a charitable and moral society, the first fear may prove less difficult to overcome.

I want to address morality in a separate post. In fact, I may initiate the topic as my next article in the Humanist News Network. It is a massive topic and I hope to address it over a few different blog entries. Let me just touch on the subject with a skeleton overview and the statement that we need to have a system for identifying moral choices. I cannot think of many other things that anger and scare the religious more than the idea of “Moral Relativism.” Therefore, Moral Relativism is just as much our enemy as it is theirs.

Moral living makes sense for two basic reasons:
1) Humans feel pain and suffering (as well as joy)
2) Humans have a capacity for empathy

We can choose to be moral, not because we hope for eternal blessings and fear eternal punishment, but because we can relate to and empathize with another person’s pain.

We should base our moral choices, not on arbitrary rules from an old book (a few that come to mind: don’t eat pork, don’t drink coffee, don’t flip the lights on the Sabbath, don’t expose your shoulders except when swimming); we should base our choices on whether they will cause others pain. To take it further, we should ask ourselves whether the action we want to take, if everyone were to take the same action in similar circumstances, would increase the overall happiness or the overall suffering in the world.

We will discuss this in detail later, but ultimately we have to show the world that we have a reliable system for making moral choices, a system that will agree with and make logical sense to all people, no matter the religion. We won’t all necessarily agree with the exact choice in every situation. The important thing is that we can show that there are reasons to be moral which extend beyond arbitrary religious rules.

The other image problem has to do with the inaccurate portrayal that some of us project on a regular basis: Anger. I see it in some atheist blogs: Cries for the termination of religion altogether (is that really going to convince religious people that they are safe with us leading?). I see blame against the religious for all of the world’s problems. I see hyperbolic claims about religious people that are simply not true.

Some atheists also project a lopsided amount of anger in the way they choose to demonstrate. The recent “War On Easter” was an example. One blogger I read said she was treating Christians to a taste of their own medicine by putting anti-Jesus literature in the church pews for Easter Sunday. I have never known a Christian to defame another religion’s god in the other religion’s holy chapel. The War On Easter was not a tit-for-tat pay-back game. It was an outrageous assault unlike any actions I have ever seen a Christian take.

It reminds me of a recent “Smut for Smut” campaign where college students set up a booth where they offered to trade smut for smut: They handed porn to anyone who would give them a Bible. The idea was to bring awareness to smutty passages in the Old Testament regarding women, sex, and war. While a genuine discussion with the religious regarding these problems with the Bible could be enlightening and educational to many people, offering pornography in exchange for Bibles only make us look crude and hateful.

On the other hand, we have people like the Ebay atheist, who is actually reaching his hand across the aisle of differences and having a real and positive affect. He is showing concern and striving to understand the religious. In return they are trying to understand him. He is taking a non-offensive, but very bold approach to bridging the gap between us.

Just look at what this article had to say about Hemant Mehta, the Ebay Atheist:

The stunt has racked up several ad campaigns’ worth of exposure for the product he was actually marketing: atheism as a wholesome American way of life.

A dedicated nonbeliever, Mehta auctioned his soul on the following terms: For every $10 bid to win, he would attend an hour of services at a local house of worship of the winner’s choosing. He promised to keep an open journal of his experience and an open mind to the possibility of conversion. The bait was the chance to win him over for God, but only the purest of souls could fail to see the hook in Mehta’s own bid to sell atheism as just another strand in our glorious tapestry of beliefs.

I also liked the friendly “demonstration” that gay and lesbian families held for the Easter Egg Hunt at the White House. It was hardly a demonstration at all. No shouting, no accusations. All they did was announce that gay and lesbian families would have a large showing at the White House for the Easter Egg Hunt. And they did! They showed up early to get in. They wore the rainbow-colored flower leis to identify themselves. They were happy and friendly and participated like any other family. They put a good face on gay families. We need to do something like that.

I have an idea of something we can do right away. Something to identify us with our real values. Something that will show that we mean business when it comes to working to solve the world’s problems. And it will be positive! Just give me a few days to present it to you.

In the meantime, clear your calendar for May 4th. Pencil in a two or three hour block for an activity which I will later disclose. Begin thinking about a cause you feel passionate about. I’m not talking about a cause for atheists/agnostics/freethinkers etc. I’m talking about a real problem in the world: hunger, abuse, the child-sex industry, disease. Which one moves you the most? Hold onto that thought and that date. I promise I’ll get back to you later.

I have been struggling to find a reasonable answer to this question. How do atheists/agnostics get people to not despise us? In Texas I merely tell someone I am an atheist and the stereotypes just start coming. Not always, but it takes the liberal/open-minded person to hear me out and then realize that I am atheist for good reasons. Texas is conservative though so that is not typical. My question(maybe a topic) is how do we get xians to just shrug their shoulders when they hear that someone is an atheist/agnostic? As if that proclamation is immaterial and irrelevant.

I’m going to answer this question in two posts. This first one will deal with the personal situation of “coming out” to our friends, since this topic has come up a number of times recently. In second post I will talk more about a long-term plan for improving our public image as a whole.

There are definite things that we, as atheists/agnostics/freethinkers, like to do as activists (some more than others) that will continue to make things worse for us. Trust me . . . having been a religious, political conservative (among mostly other religious, political conservatives) my entire life, I know that some of the things we do only confirms the religious people’s belief that atheists are evil and could bring down the entire stability of the United States. I am confident that there are certain ways for us to communicate, demonstrate, and work for our rights that are more likely to have positive results. That topic will be for next time.

On a personal level, as far as I know, most everyone who knows me is acquainted with my secular stance. To one degree or another, they know some or all of the following about me:

I am raising my children without religion
We are agnostic
I do not believe in the existence of God at all
We do not go to to church on principle
I do not agree with religion
I play a public role in the non-religious community as a writer and a blogger.

Though I live in a conservative, Christian city (with a high Mormon population), I have never had a friend or associate shun me, react negatively (with the exception of a few Mormon friends in the very beginning who expressed sadness, and a couple who offered to take my children to church FOR me . . .grrr). But as a whole, my friends have continued to pursue friendships with me despite our religious differences.

Many AgnosticMom readers have expressed difficulties in this area. They have shared experiences of people losing interest in the friendship as a result of the atheist/agnsotic revelation.

I have no idea if what I do is any different from others who have had problems. Maybe we just interpret our friends’ actions in different ways, effecting the way we treat them? Maybe I am fortunate to live around tolerant people?

I will tell you how I “come out,” and you can decide for yourself if the difference is between the way we say it, the way we interpret our friends, or the friends themselves.

First I need to acknowledge what I DON’T do, which might make a difference. Although my personal beliefs are atheistic, I call myself “agnostic” because it seems to me more philosophically sound. Therefore, I never tell people, “I’m atheist.” Perhaps if I used this label I might get a different reaction because of the stigma associated with it. My previous experiences make me doubt it, though. Still, I am going to use my next few opportunities to tell people I am atheist, just to see if I get a different reaction. After I’ve had a chance to try it a few times, I will report my results!

Let me tell you what I DO do. It varies, depending on whether I am with good friends, or acquaintances whose conversations with me never reach beyond topics of the weather. The situation doesn’t allow for in-depth discussion, making a chance for follow-up questions and understanding difficult. With these acquaintances, I short-cut with, “We are not religious.”

For example, I have a gun-toting, militant-type of Christian neighbor. He has the products of his animals hunts mounted on his living room wall. He skins his prey right on his front driveway. He patrols our suburban neighborhood with a gun on his belt. He is a young Christian father and, except for the animal skinning on the driveway, a good neighbor.

Recently, while making mundane neighborly-talk with Mr. Gun-Rights Conservative, he asked me, “What’s the deal with all the religious names in your family? Israel, Noell, Trinity? Is that coincidence or does it have something to do with your religion?”

I answered with a smile (always with a smile!), “NO, it’s just a coincidence. We’re not religious.”

Surprised, he needed a confirmation, “You’re not?”

Again, with that all-important confident smile, I gave him the confirmation he sought, “No, not at all.”

On the other hand, when my friends are socializing (I am part of a MOMS Club with an evolving membership), I go into more detail when the topic comes up. Again, with that smile, I say, “I am agnostic. I don’t believe in God or religion.” If I get the chance I make sure to tell them my issue with religion is only a matter of beliefs and not a personal grudge for past offenses.

I also make sure to show the same amount of interest in, and respect for, the religious beliefs of my friends as I expect them to show me.

Responses to me are often surprise and curiosity, which I interpret to be positive responses. When there are so few of us, and even fewer of us who are open about our non-beliefs, we have to understand that people have very little exposure to atheists and agnostics. What else can they be but surprised?

I cannot think of a time when someone seemed uncomfortable at learning my stance. Is it because they have enough exposure to me to know I am not a threat to them, their children, nor to society? Is it because of the confidence and smile with which I communicate? (It took me coming out a couple of times before I lost my fear). Is it because I am with a circle of exceptional friends who are comfortable with religious differences? Maybe I interpret certain reactions as positive where others might interpret them negatively?

What do you think?

I am sure that one of the most important things we can all do to improve our image is to start telling our friends, in an positive way, that we are atheists and agnostics. How else will people ever be able to form a positive view of us if they don’t personally know any moral, happy freethinkers? If they know one, they will have their first experience of cognitive dissonance. They will see that, in the case of that one person, the reality does not match up with their view of what an atheist is like. If they know two or three of us, they will have to learn to change their view altogether.

Big Love is about a modern polygamous family living in secret in a Salt Lake City suburb. Polygamy is such a bizarre and fascinating topic. Having grown up Mormon, polygamy was always looming as a future possibility. Sure, the Church makes sure everyone knows it banned polygamy, but the reason for the ban was because it was illegal and the pressure from the outside to stop was immense. As much as Mormons would like it to go away, the doctrine and the principle remain.

As young teenage girls at sleepovers, and as college women in our BYU dorms, we sometimes talked about the prospects of polygamy in our futures. What if it became legal someday? Would God command us to take it up again? If that never happened, it was sure to return during the Millennium (the thousand year period between the Second Coming of Jesus and the Final Day of Judgement). Since we are living in the “Last Days,” most of us felt pretty confident we would be a part of the Millennium. And that was likely to include polygamy.

If we somehow avoided polygamy before and during the Millennium, it was sure to come up in the eternities of the Celestial Kingdom, the highest kingdom of Heaven. Plural Marriage is a Celestial Law in Mormon doctrine. A hypothesis is there will be more women than men in the Celestial Kingdom, and polygamy will be necessary to give all women their Celestial Glory. Plural wives and many offspring also add to the glory of the man.

So as girls and young women, we sometimes whispered to each other during late night discussions how we would react to a commandment for our husbands to take a second wife. (Funny that we always saw it from the point of view of being the first wife. I guess we never imagined being the second or third).

Would we be able to do it? Could we overcome our jealousy? Or, the most honest, yet lowly question: would we maintain our position of being the favorite wife? Our only hope was that by then Jesus would cleanse our hearts and give us charity, or the Love of Christ, so that we could do it in happiness.

These were not questions and conversations of fundamentalists. These were of mainstream Mormons from across the country.

Now that polygamy is no longer in my personal future of possibilities, I can watch Big Love in fascination, rather than fear. What I enjoy about the show is a chance to see polygamy played out among modern people, rather than the backwards people living in communes (although you see that, too). It allows us to put ourselves in the place of the spouses; to imagine what it would be like. Because the very struggles that polygamous spouses endure in modern life, are the very struggles that the pioneer Mormon women endured when it was still a Mormon practice.

While the show is not perfect (I am still waiting to know the motives of the individuals for entering a very challenging lifestyle), I have really enjoyed the first three episodes. It’s on tonight, so if you’re interested in taking a peek at a very different kind of family, hook up your HBO, microwave some popcorn, and enjoy . . .after you put the kids to bed, that is.

I do think it should be removed, but my main goals in terms of spreading secularism have been to support the scientific community, improve the education of science, and to show my friends and acquaintances that atheists and agnostics can still be moral people by allowing them to know my stance on religion. Obviously supporting other non-religious families through my blog is another goal of mine.

I think it is good that we all take a few different approaches in the overall goal to create a country more accepting of its non-religious minority. Hifi’s biggest contribution (that I know of) has revolved around the Pledge of Allegiance. You can look here to see his website and learn things about the origins of The Pledge that you may not have heard before. I want to start a discussion here on Hifi’s comment:

This news item just came out today about parents suing the school and state of Texas for the “moment of prayer. It brought me back to this topic of “What’s a Parent to Do” because there is more to it than leading and coaching and educating our kids.

We can also stand up and take individual responsibility for changing the system. When I was growing up in the sixties, the Pledge of Allegiance, among other conformist religious activities and indignities of the time, irked me to no end. Throughout high school, I stood silent and defiant (if you can be defiant while also feeling guilty.)

Now that I am a parent, I look back and am appalled that there was no one then who ever stood up for me. When my kids started school, I could not believe that in the 40 years since I had been in elementary school that the Pledge was still intact and going stronger than ever. This hadn’t already been dealt with by someone? Well, one thing I’ve done as a parent is to make sure my kids have someone who will stand for them and have taken this issue head on.

I have more or less documented my progress (not inconsiderable for a lone individual) in the following posts on the Bright’s Pledge forum
- Petition to the Board with media attention
- Code of education modified
- Taking it directly to the teachers

I think my point here can be summed up with a comment made by another poster on the Brights’ forum in defense of my efforts in answer to a niggling critic. “hifi is one of the few people here actually doing something, not just talking. To actually achieve something there are two obstacles that need to be overcome 1) public opinion and 2) public opinion sensitive school boards, state legislatures, Congress, and courts. Any effort towards making progress is better than nothing and cheap talk is nothing. If parents around the country started doing what hifi is doing that would have a real impact.”

I would add that you do not need children in school to do this local work. Everyone’s property taxes pay for schools and everyone can provide input and criticism to public officials within their districts.

For those who have children, certainly, raising strongly secular kids is an equally important parallel effort. I am heartened that discussions here are sprouting concrete efforts, beyond the talk, toward that end. But, please, let’s not stop there.

I would love it if everyone clicked on the links, read about Hifi’s efforts, and then came back here to share your thoughts.

Do you agree with this cause? Why or why not?
If you agree, is it one you will get behind?
If yes, what are you going to do about it? Or what have you already done?

If this motivates you to some future action, please come back here and report your efforts and results.

Anticipating St. Patrick’s Day this year as a blogger, I decided to actually learn about the holiday. Maybe there would be some interesting connection I could make between luck, superstition, Christianity, and secularism.

It turns out the original holiday had nothing to do with leprechauns or pots of gold. What did the holiday celebrate? The man, St. Patrick, single-handedly converted the people of Ireland from Paganism to Christianity. He used the Shamrock, a three-leafed, clover to teach about the concept of the Trinity (where did the four-leaf clover idea come from? I remember searching entire yards for four-leafed clovers!).

Apparently Ireland had its tradition of leprechauns, but they had no relation to St. Patrick’s Day until Disney associated the two concepts in a movie (wouldn’t you know?). While I’m sure there is more I could report about this holiday, I lost interest as soon as I learned it was strictly a holy day to celebrate the country’s conversion to Christianity.

Rather than talk more about origins, I’m blogging about my “Luck” today. In this case, a luck of the draw when it comes to In-Laws.

Would you feel lucky if, when you “came out” to your In-Laws, they told you they respected you? If they offered to never try to convert your children (their grandchildren) to religion? If they reassured you they wouldn’t sneak their own beliefs to the kids?

I am lucky.

Would you consider yourself lucky if your In-Laws enjoyed (at least partially) reading your agnostic blog, which often rants about religion? Even the religion of those same In-Laws? What if your father-in-law (Jerry) advised his now agnostic daughter (Sadie) to start reading your blog? Wouldn’t you feel lucky? Lucky to have such reasonable In-Laws, that is?

Can you imagine how lucky I feel that my mother-in-law (Debbie) recently sent me an email with a compilation of her thoughts in response to my blog? She introduced it by saying:

I never know for sure how to respond to things, especially when I am emotionally involved. My feelings can be raw and emotional when I first think of them, so I find it therapeutic to write them down. This time I did it in the form of a letter to you. I decided that I should send them to you because you are so objective and interested in differing opinions. If you would like to quote or comment on anything I wrote here, be my guest. I only hope that you know that, regardless of what either one of us believe, you are important to me and I want to have/ keep a good relationship with you.

From Debbie’s explanations of certain things, I realized she worried that I resented her; resented her for taking the kids to church when we leave them with her to go out of town. We are lucky that she revealed her worries so I could clear it up. Taking them to church is only what I expect. She has to go to church. She has my kids. Therefore, my kids go to church. Israel and I are lucky to get away a few times a year.

But do you know what else makes me so lucky? I don’t think I can possibly have more supportive In-Laws. Tell me I did not find my pot of gold when I married into this family. Debbie said:

You see my emotions here, I’m sure – gladness, comfort, joy, sadness, pain, wonder, and gratitude. Life is only worth living if we can feel and share these feelings with others… to love and be loved… to know that there are people who will stand by you no matter what.

I stand by you, Noell. I love you

Later she left a message on my phone telling me she thought it is wonderful that I blog the way I do, and encouraged me to “keep blogging.”

How can you get more lucky than that?

(Note to Father-in-Law: Happy birthday!)

We love the atmosphere at D’Vine, but we especially love the food. Oh, and the wine is really good, too.

At one end if the room is an inviting circle of three love seats and a coffee table. To our delight on this particular Friday evening, a man began setting up a guitar and sound system across from that cushiony spot. We enjoyed our cheeses, olives, nuts and breads (oh, and the wine) in anticipation of a mediocre bar-musician.

Once set up, a middle-aged gentleman, of very ordinary middle-aged appearance, introduced himself as a regular entertainer at D’Vine. He talked about being fifty years old and excused his declining short-term memory in case numerous people began making requests. The audience, some just beginning the middle-aged adventure, others in the very throes of it, and a few moving on to an ever wiser age, chuckled in an all too real understanding.

And then the ordinary looking middle-aged gentleman began to sing with a very un-ordinary voice. He caught my attention. While conversations with our friends, Tami and Larry, are always engaging, funny, entertaining, and thought-provoking, the man at the microphone had me at the first lyric.

He sang the usual guitar-accompanied songs; pieces by James Taylor, Cat Stevens, and Jimmy Buffet. He even played Piano Man. On his guitar.

We sang along, swooning over lifetimes of song-associated memories, sometimes raising our glasses for lyrics that deserved special attention.

During one song, a man from the party behind me exited the restroom behind the musician, while dancing with abandon. A lady from his table jumped up to join him, and there we sat, in a wine bar and bistro, enjoying the dancing couple who weren’t all that good, and really didn’t care.

I felt what I often feel when music is playing, but to the degree that I feel it when at places such as sing-along piano bars. It is a music-induced high, punctuated with the shared experience of strangers. Strangers from different parts of a very large country, of different backgrounds and varied experiences, united with the common love of the same music.

That night at D’Vine, caught up in the rapture of that shared experience, enjoying the exceptional voice of the mediocre-looking middle-aged man, I flashed back to his comment of being fifty years old with a failing short-term memory. It was one of those experiences that will mean less to you as you read about it on your computer. You were not in the moment, but at the time, my heart swelled up to my throat and I felt how incredible it is to exist.

How incredible it is to exist while having a knowledge of our finality. We won’t be here long, and those before us are gone now. But at this moment, here we are. We are watching it fade as we grow older, feeling the changes that come with advancing age, and enjoying it while we have it. I wanted to hug our entertainer for bringing his normal, human self, with his normal human problems, to share music with this aging, here-to-get-away group of ordinary men and women.

It was days later that I watched The Root Of All Evil? with Richard Dawkins. I witnessed the scene at the evangelical, “rock concert” worship service. I watched the young men jumping up and down, heard the beat that drove them to elation and joy. And I related. I didn’t relate to the message. I related to the experience. Here they were, a group of strangers, joined together with a common goal, and getting high on music, the most powerful drug I know.

These are the experiences worth living for. They’re not messages from God; not unless you think Heaven means “getting wasted away again in Margaritaville.”

They’re not witnesses of truth, unless you think “the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost took the last train for the coast the day the music died”.

These experiences are endorphin-driven, organic reactions that bring us beauty, joy, and even a desire to be a better person. They are moments to seek after. They are what make it all so worth it.

Fran was the first to mention “peer pressure for Jesus”, and then Cassandra, from The Atheist Mama, expressed one of her fears:

But when you have 14 year olds (for example) asking to go to church with their friends – well, I’m not so sure how I feel about situations like that. Young people are so easily drawn in to things, especially when it looks like a good opportunity for “happiness” and “acceptance” and “forgiveness.”

When teenagers are starting to search for their beliefs, and themselves, I think that stepping in and steering them in the right direction may be important.

I watched a 14 year old boy join the Mormon church. His family (xian, but not really church-goers) was dumbfounded. It all started when he stayed at a friend’s house one night and went to church with them the next day, just to hang out…

I know that in the past, some have suggested exposing our children to other peoples’ religions. I can see the benefits of this, especially when our kids are young and we are there with them to explain it the way we see it. But what about sending them with their friends? Cassandra is right that those formative teen years give the child a desperate need to find a cause that is separate from their parents’. They need to belong somewhere where they will feel accepted. The “acceptance” they will encounter at churches will be alluring, but deceiving, because the acceptance comes with unrealistic and manipulative conditions.

Having been a Mormon teenager myself, I have witnessed numerous times how teens take on a martyr-complex when their parents don’t allow them to get baptized. I’ve seen how the church members feed that complex; how church members pit the child against the parents by insinuating that the parents are fighting alongside Satan against God’s will.

I had already decided that I would never allow one of my children to get baptized in a church of their choosing as long as they are not legal adults. I already anticipate this problem because Mormons dominate our city (Mesa, Arizona). I have already told my son, Blake, who asked about getting baptized when he attended his cousin’s baptism, that joining a church is a decision for mature adults, not children and teenagers. I had not really thought about the inevitable times when their friends will invite them to church after sleepovers, or to activities during the week.

Do we outlaw all participation in church services and activities? Will that seem paranoid? Does that matter? Do we let them go and then talk about it with them afterwards?

After thinking about my experiences as a teen, I feel inclined to not allow it at all. But maybe I am reacting to the anger I am starting to feel at my memories.

What are your thoughts and experiences on the matter?

There is still unchartered territory, though, to which I have been too timid to venture out. It is the territory of past friends who are still Mormon. I have actually dodged an old, good friend, who I saw at the store, because I was wearing a sleeveless shirt. A Mormon wearing a sleevless shirt might as well strap on a neon-light that says, “Hey, I’ve really gone downhill! I’m living a life of hedonistic sin and I need your pity.”

So, instead of reuniting myself with this dear friend, who worked with me as a Primary President (Primary is the children’s organization of the Mormon Church), I walked the other way.
At Christmas I received the traditional holiday newsletter from one of my old college roommates. As far as I know, she has no idea I ever left the church. Her letter was full of Mormon accomplishment, as usual. I must say, I was very impressed. Every year she catches me up on what her new positions are within her congregation. For the last few years, my email responses to her have been silent with regard to my own non-existent church responsibilities. I have talked about what I am doing with the MOMS Club. Being part of another organization outside of church should be enough to send up red flags. Mormons rarely have the time or need to join another group. But as far as I know, she is not aware that I left.

I have been contemplating sending her an email to catch her up on what I am doing. Will she email me back to ask what my current church calling is? This idea has made me hesitate. But I think I am ready to face the question. If she asks, I will tell her how happy we are, and that we have chosen a different path. I’ll tell her what that path is, and even send her a link to my website if she is interested in hearing the finer details of my life and thoughts.

Also, Ron wrote a letter to the Humanist News Network, praising them for giving a column to AgnosticMom. He copied it in a comment here. What a huge compliment. He made some points that I want to focus the rest of this post on:

Ron said:

“The easily cited presumption by the religious culture is that we do not thrive because we lack the moral fortitude to be strong, joyful, loving families. Humanism in all its forms must not be invalidated as a fringe group of rebelious students, or codgers with too much time on their hands and bad experiences with the church.”

This comment interests me for two reasons. First, I have heard and read comments in the newspaper and on the radio, such as, “You never see any athiest charitable groups!”

Clearly we have an image problem. And we lack visibility. There are, in fact, athiest/agnostic, humanist, and other secular groups, doing charitable work. Charitable work is one of the foundations of the humanist philosophy, since we cannot wait for a god we don’t believe exists to solve the world’s problems. We have to do it ourselves.

But we are a minority. People don’t know of our organizations. Also, Americans are still scared of athiests. So our tiny groups don’t get the news coverage of, say, the Salvation Army.

I will admit, there is also some in-fighting. Secularists are individualists. We fear being locked into a box where we won’t agree with every stand an organization takes. The result: either we stay isolated, or in rare instances, we make a new organization. This fact comes to light with the various names and groups representing secularits: “Brights,” “freethinkers,” “the godless,” and “existentialists” are just a few to add to the typical list. And then there is the spectrum of athiesm and agnostism: strong athiest, weak athiest, positive athiest, athiest-agnostic, etc. Why do we care about these minute details? We are all secularists and we are dealing with the same issues.

In the past, this spectrum of secularist groups allowed the concern of defining themselves override the idea of banding together to unite in purpose. Only recently, in light of the growing power of the religious right, are these groups beginning to set aside their differences, start pooling resources, and work together.

It is time that people get to know us for the good we want to accomplish: strong families, strong democracy, strong ethics, and the freedom to exercise a moral choice based on our own beliefs, not to be compelled by someone else’s.

The other reason I am interested in Ron’s comment: he mentioned how religious folks dismiss us as people with bad experiences in the church. AgnosticMom has received a few comments from religious readers, apologizing for bad experiences they thought I had. Maybe they have made an assumption. Or maybe I have portayed myself with some inaccuracy. As Ron implied, not all of us are here because of bad experiences with religious life, myself included. I am in here because I wanted truth.

A few people have referred to the “oppressive religion”of my past or “strict childhood.” I am sorry I gave the wrong impression. I say this, both to clear up any misunderstanding about myself, and also to give the Mormon church a little slack. I was a happy Mormon. I loved being a member of the church. I loved my religion enough to make the choice to serve a mission for a year and a half when I was twenty-one. I accepted, and sought after, responsibilities within the church. I held a number of leadership positions in my congregations.

Over time, contradictions and issues I didn’t agree with, accumulated to a degree that I had to face the existence of my serious doubts. Confident that God would answer my prayers and bring me back to complete faith in his church, I set out to get some answers. The more scripture I studied, the more inconstinencies I discovered. Six months later, I felt sure the LDS church was not true. Still, I could not walk away. I hope this demonstrates how much I loved being a Mormon. It wasn’t until another six months later that I was ready to leave. It is only in retrospect that I have since become aware of what I now regard as the silly little insanities of Mormonism, which I sometimes refer to in my posts.

I know that some Mormons who leave say they felt oppressed, or that they couldn’t live up to the standards. I implied this when I referred to my childhood hero, Nephi, in the post, “What’s Missing Is A System.” I was mostly joking when I made the comment, “No wonder I have overwhelming and unrealistic expectations of myself.” Nephi didn’t really cause me anxiety. I expect my perfectionism is related to some degree, but I give most of the responsibility to my genes. And I am not complaining about my over-achieving tendencies. I never had feelings of inadequacy as a Mormon.

Some concerned religious readers lamented that I wrote off all religion as a result of my Mormon experience. This was not the case. After questioning the Mormon church, I naturally sought after Christianity in general. In my studies, I found the Bible to be just as problematic than the Book of Mormon. I learned about the history of the various and evolving manuscripts that became the Gospels. I also noticed the changing personality of God from the Old Testament to the New, to modern times, including the very American Jesus so popular right now.

Religious readers: I appreciate that you come to my blog. I appreciate that you are not afraid of us agnostics here. I appreciate your willingness to understand us. That is what we want. I appreciate your concern for my family and me. I don’t want to persuade you that your religion is wrong. I just want you to understand where I am coming from. My agnostic readers are here to support each other, to make a place for their families, and to help each other to leave a positive mark on the world.

HNN is part of the Institute for Humanist Studies. The Executive Director found my blog and saw a need for a column on humanist parenting. He contacted me last Friday and asked if I’d do it.

When I began blogging last summer, part of my intent was to see if I could be a writer. I have always had a secret desire to write, but since having children, the most I’ve written is a few published letters to the editor. I entered the blogosphere with cold fingers.

In hopes of extracting some talent from within, while at the same time filling the void that agnostic parents have been staring into, I have wondered if I could blog my way into a book. That still remains to be seen.

My new column with the Humanist News Network does not bring me to professional status. But I am so excited to have a shot at a little more experience and exposure. You can subscribe to get the e-zine here.

I’m going to take advantage of this opportunity to thank some blogger friends who, though may or may not necessarily be agnostic or athiest, are great bloggers who have helped AgnosticMom increase visibility by referring and linking to my blog.

Mary Tsao at Mom Writes
Jane at Average Jane
Zoe at A Complicated Salvation
Larry Keim at Larry Keim’s Blog
Laura at LolaFromOz

I hope I didn’t miss anybody. Thanks so much!

At some point, my parents began listening to Rush Limbaugh. He was on two different stations at different times of the day, so we had Rush for 6 hours every day. My parents played him on every radio in the house. No matter where you were, you could hear.

I really can’t live my life without these voices, at least at some point in my day. But I’m not into hearing Rush tell me that my rejection of a belief in God is because I want the ability to be immoral without guilt.

So I have found a more tolerant host. Although I disagree with him seventy percent of the time, I love Dennis Prager. He “prefers clarity over agreement.” And that is what I get from him. Clarity. Not as much agreement.

So this is my third time referring to his show. He provides me much brain food, therefore, you can expect to hear of him more in the future at AgnosticMom.

Dennis Prager spoke of a man who apologized to his son for “giving a worse America to you than my father gave to me.”

Although there may be some truth in the statement, I have to wonder if it is really so, overall. I mean, I’m sure the African Americans who, at one time, had to drink from different water fountains and go to different schools would disagree. And I’m sure the women who weren’t allowed to vote would disagree. I’m sure the hispanics in my hometown, who were not allowed in the public pools, would disagree.

I bet the girls who were blamed for their own rapes would disagree. I bet the parents of depressed suicidal teens, who were told their children had lost their seat in heaven, would disagree. I bet the children with ADHD, who were smacked with a whip in school for not controlling themselves, would disagree.

I wonder if the “love children”, the bastards, who were labled dirty for coming too soon, would agree? Or what about those permanently paralyzed by polio, before there was a cure? How about the single mothers who couldn’t get a decent enough job to feed their family?

We could go back a few more generations, to the lawlessness of the old west,
the ruling gangs of New York, the slaves of the south. Child labor? Public education by way of the Bible? Or what about NO public education?

Yes, there may be spots where America has done a nose-dive down a slippery slope. But does it really balance out to a net loss? I don’t think so. I’d say, for many, America is a much better, safer place.

Pat Robertson is not representative of all Christians. I don’t want you to mistake me for lumping millions of good religous people into the same box as fanatics like Pat. But he does have a huge following who supports his judgemental rantings. If it weren’t for them, he wouldn’t be able to continue this nonsense.

Yesterday I heard one of these nuts call into a radio station, with this comment about Sharon’s stroke, “He’s killed a lot of people. It’s a long time coming.”

It seems Pat has become their modern prophet, speaking for their god, except that his prophecies often come after the fact. This group of fanatical religionists is growing larger and more powerful. They have become bold in their political interference, effectively changing the definition of science for some school boards, convincing pharmacists that they don’t have to fill doctors’ prescriptions if they are religiously opposed to them, and intruding on a married man’s right to make decisions concering his wife who, for years, has been in a vegetative state.

I really don’t care if people want to have outrageous beliefs. But when they are powerful enough to effect the social policy of our country in way that is damaging, we need to reverse the trend. I’m at a loss for how.

One of my favorite holiday traditions is our Pre-Christmas evening with our best friends, Tami and Larry Keim. (Yes, you know Larry. And if you read my comments, you’ve heard from Tami, also). On this night, we get the kids down to bed right as Tami and Larry arrive at our home. We break open champaigne or Egg Nog, have some dessert, and exchange PRESENTS!

Tami is one of those more-thoughtful-than-average present-givers. I know this because, not only do I receive gifts from her, I have also gone gift-shopping with her. She will go from store to store to find just the right item, in just the right style. My awesome husband, Israel, is one of other best gift-givers I’ve known. He crawls to the end of the world for the most supreme presents for my birthdays, Christmas, and all those other days that bind us with the social requirement of gift-shopping.

But I digress . . . big-time. On this Christmas-For-The-Adults evening, we also exchange stories. We’re a story-sharing group, and are known for spending 5 hours at a restaurant (yes, we tip our servers well). Somehow, this evening, like most evenings, we got to the subject of evolution, and how it is so foreign to some people, that they can’t imagine any of their acquaintances actually accept it!

I told them of my dear sister-in-law, who says she has the WEIRDEST brother-in-law. When I asked her what made him so weird, she told me he actually believes in evolution! He read a book, and “automatically believes everything, just because it’s in a book.”

Then there is one of my husband’s aunts, who told me how she’s having to endure this awful geology class, wasting her time learning things that are just not true; for example, that some rocks are billions of years old. In her mind, if they say it is more than 6 or 7,ooo years old, they are wrong.

I love these two ladies. But I can’t believe people I am close with still think this way. Larry had his own contribution to the evolution-rejecting phenonemon. He told us about an article he read in a blog, where the writer describes a similar experience, and then shares a fascinating story of evolution and “Mother Acanthostega” (as opposed to Mother Eve). This is my first time hearing a description of the ancestor that links humans (and all mammals) to our ancestors of the sea.

Right after Christmas, Larry sent me a link to the blog with this article, so I got to read it for myself. What I love about the writer, darksyde, and his way of teaching, is his story-telling style. It’s almost like reading Dean Koontz, except that the names are harder to follow. So it takes a little more concentration. I have criticized science educators for failing to teach. They don’t know how to reach the masses: the majority of us who are not science-oriented. They need to learn from scientists like Carl Sagan, or like this blogger, darksyde.

So I encourage you to go check out this blog. It is my late holiday gift to you, which I am re-gifting from Larry.