Atheist Parenting - Science and Music

Parenting while being an atheist raises some interesting issues. I avoid religiously focused activities and organizations as a general rule, and that rule is just as important in regard to my son as it is to me. Still, the fact is that I live in a somewhat religious culture and so my son sometimes comes up with the most interesting ideas about belief, god, and what he believes.

The other day he told me, "Mom, my god can fly."

"Wow, Tristan, that's cool. Is this your personal god, or is it everyone's god?"

"Anyone who wants to believe in him can I guess."

"Do you think this god is real, or is he someone you made up, like a pretend friend?"

"He's kind of a pretend friend. I don't know. I don't think he's real, but I thought him up so I could believe in god like James at school."

"Do a lot of kids talk about god at school?"

"Some people do. People at my school. James asked me and I said I don't know and he made a face like I was crazy."

"Do you think James knows for sure that there is a god?"

"No, I think he pretends like I do. I think pretend friends help you not feel lonely sometimes."

So, I feel like he's doing fine in his development in regard to god and religion in general. He's kind of interested, but at the same time he realizes that just because someone else believes something, that doesn't mean it is actually real or that he has to believe it.

One of the things I do make sure my son is exposed to is lots and lots of science. My son responds to anything in song form, so I've taken up watching They Might Be Giant podcasts and videos from their Here Comes Science CD/DVD. I can't recommend these guys enough. They're even scientifically responsible enough to have made a song which corrected an older song they released regarding why the sun shines. Now that's pretty awesome!

Why My Son Will Never Be A Boy Scout

One of the hardest aspects of being a parent is the social pressure to conform for the sake of your kid. I don't know anyone who has kids who hasn't at some point struggled with a choice or situation where the majority believes something is either acceptable or unacceptable, good or bad, and the parent disagrees. I feel like it's important to give your kid all of the experiences you possibly can, and though economic and social constrictions make those available experiences different in every case, I think that one of the hardest things for a parent to do is to separate their own opinions regarding activities from their willingness to allow their kids to experience those activities.

There is an activity that I will never be comfortable allowing my son to participate in, and it's something that for a lot of Americans is seen as a hugely valuable experience for boys especially - the Boy Scouts of America.

For a lot of people, the Boy Scouts are considered one of the best activities you could encourage your son to participate in. They will cite all of the great things about the Scouts - their focus on community and being a good Samaritan, their dedication to volunteerism and to being loyal, honest, etc. I find exceptional value in these things as well, the problem I have with the boy scouts ought to be an obvious one. Take a look at their oath -

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

It is a requirement to believe in god in order to be a Scout. Which, if my son decided he believed in god wouldn't be as big of an issue for me as something far more sinister - the fact the the Boy Scouts of America is an actively and vocally homophobic organization.

So, let's revisit the list of all those admirable things that makes the Scouts such a great experience for boys. Their focus on community (except for the gay community, which should be rejected) and being a good Samaritan (though this only extends as far as heterosexuality is concerned, as the scouts also teach discrimination), their dedication to (specifically straight) volunteerism and to being loyal (as long as your loyalty has nothing to do with homosexuals), honest, etc.

The fact is, it doesn't matter how many awesome things the Scouts do as an organization, everything they do is tainted by the fact that they actively endorse homophobia by not allowing homosexuals to be scouts or scout masters. Presumably this rule is in place because the Scouts are a religious organization.

I don't like the idea of making too many moral decisions on behalf of my son, but I refuse to support his participation in an organization that endorses homophobia regardless of what the popular position on the organization might be. There are no amount of camping trips and volunteer experiences that would be worth putting my son in a position where he has to reject an entire group of people in order to participate in these activities.

So, I guess this summer we're going camping.

Coach Baptizes 16 - 17 Year Old Players Without Parent's Permission

LOUISVILLE — A mother is angry about a trip led by the head football coach at Breckinridge County High School took about 20 players on a school bus late last month to his church, where nearly half of them — including her son — were baptized.

Michelle Ammons said her 16-year-old son was baptized without her knowledge and consent, and she is upset that a public school bus was used to take players to a church service — and that the school district's superintendent was there and did not object.

"Nobody should push their faith on anybody else," said Ammons, whose son, Robert Coffey, said coach Scott Mooney told him and other players that the Aug. 26 outing would include only a motivational speaker and a free steak dinner.

"He said it would bring the team together," Robert, a sophomore, said in an interview.

Two other parents, however, said in interviews that their sons told them that Mooney had said the voluntary outing to Franklin Crossroads Baptist Church in Hardin County would include a revival.

Mooney, contacted by phone, said school district officials instructed him not to comment.

But Superintendent Janet Meeks, who is a member of the church and witnessed the baptisms, said she thinks the trip was proper because attendance was not required, and another coach paid for the gas.

Meeks said parents weren't given permission slips to sign but knew the event would include a church service, if not specifically a baptism. She said eight or nine players came forward and were baptized.

"None of the players were rewarded for going and none were punished for not going," Meeks said.

David Friedman, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, said in an interview that the trip would appear to violate Supreme Court edicts on the separation of church and state — even if it was voluntary and the school district didn't pay for the fuel.

"If players want to attend the coach's church and get baptized, that's great," Friedman said. But a coach cannot solicit player attendance at school, he said, noting, "Coaches have great power and persuasion by virtue of their position, and they have to stay neutral."

However, Matt Staver, founder and general counsel for Liberty Counsel, an Orlando-based group that provides free legal assistance in religious liberty cases, said there was nothing wrong with trip as long as it was voluntary and no public funds were used. He compared it to a coach inviting players to attend a play or to go see a baseball game.

Neither the ACLU nor Liberty Counsel is involved in the Breckinridge County case.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said in school prayer cases that "at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so."

In March, the court rejected an appeal from a high school football coach in New Jersey who wanted to bow his head and kneel during prayers led by his players, despite a school district policy prohibiting it.

Meeks said she would have sought the consent of parents for the baptism of students if they had been "7 or 8 or 9" years old. But she didn't think it was necessary for the players who are "16 or 17."

She said that if Robert's parents didn't know that the outing was going to include a revival service it was because "he apparently was not forthcoming with his parents."

The church's pastor, the Rev. Ron Davis, said that he requires minors to obtain their parents' consent to be baptized, but he added: "Sometimes 16-year-olds look like 18 years. We did the best we could."

He said the event on Aug. 26 "was a great service" and that attendance by the players was strictly voluntary.

"I trust the coach 100%," he said of Mooney. "He is a fine young man and he is sure not going to manipulate anyone."

Two parents, Tim Bruington and Eric Vertress, said in interviews that they knew through their children that the trip would include a revival-type service.

Bruington said his son, Tyler, a senior, decided not to go. Vertress said his son, Matthew, elected to attend and that his mother drove to the church separately for the service.

Ammons, who lives in Big Spring, said that she is a Baptist but her husband, Danny, is Catholic, and that both feel like their son should wait until he is 18 to make important decisions on religion.

"We felt he was brainwashed," she said.

She said she was prepared to drop the matter until she found out that Meeks attended the service. She said she consulted a lawyer in Elizabethtown but hasn't decided what action she will take.

"They have no right to take my son on a school bus across county lines to be a church to be baptized," she said.

While 16 years old is, in my opinion, old enough to start looking into religions and making decisions for themselves, having a football coach ask one of his or her players to go to church while at school and then using state property to get to the church, regardless of who bought the gas for the trip, is a clear violation of the establishment clause. That coach was promoting a specific religion to his players and he was doing so on government property while in a position of influence over minors. This is ridiculous that anyone involved would even feign surprise that parents might be upset. While I am of the opinion that a 16 year old is old enough to make their own religious decisions, I don't consider a coach's influence in attending this kind of event an example of a kid making up their own mind about anything. Also, I might be ok with Tristan going to something like this when he's 16 but that doesn't mean everyone should be ok with their 16 year olds attending which is why asking permission is expected. It's not a matter of 'it was voluntary so the school didn't have to' it's a matter of respect.

Iowa School District Releases Religious Liberty Guidelines

Spencer School District in Iowa has apparently released a revised religious liberty draft policy which in part includes these guideline:

Teachers shall prepare and teach lessons throughout the year and throughout the curriculum that:

• Approach religion as academic, not devotional
• Strive for student awareness of religions, not acceptance of religions
• Study about religion, but do not practice religion in the classroom
• Expose students to diversity of religious views, not impose any particular view
• Educate about a variety of religions, not promote or denigrate religion
• Inform students about various beliefs, not conform students to any particular belief
• Demonstrate the impact of economic, social, political and cultural effects of religion throughout history
• Are age appropriate

Under the teacher training and curriculum section it states:

Further, the proper role for instruction about religion in the public school is in its educational value and not in religious observance or celebration. According to the Supreme Court, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids state action or practices that aid or prefer one religion over another or that aid all religions and thus endorse or show preference for religion over non-religion, while the Free Exercise Clause requires any state actions or practices which interfere with an individual's constitutionally protected religious freedom to be strictly scrutinized.

On the surface, I agree with all of this. I think that if religion can be handled in a completely secular academic manner, it's a powerful tool that can teach kids a lot about history and society. However, I think this person's comment expresses what most of our fears are whenever any school district instills specific policies regarding religion:

This is just a time bomb waiting to explode. With the state of discourse and civility in the nation today, this will only create division, suspicion, distrust, anger, etc. among and btwn students, students & teacher/preacher, students & their family, teacher/preacher & student families, etc.

Here's what will happen. This 'class' will be inacted. Over time, the christian religion discussion will occupy 90-95% of the 'class'. At that time, someone will sue the school and the school will drop the class rather than amend the content.

Want your kid to learn religion? Do it your self, send them to a religious school or bible study. When churches, of all religions, start paying taxes then maybe we can discuss using tax money to teach religions. This isn't about education at all, it's about pushing an agenda. Those supporting this would very likely be the first to elect cutting a class they deem 'liberal'.

And speaking of cutting, with budgets the way they are, why is there money for this? I think it should be on a list of ALL options on how to spend the money this would require so it can be considered along with other items (classes, supplies, resources, tools, etc) as to which is most worthy of this expense. But that won't happen.

Also, I take exception to this statement "protecting the liberty rights of students of all faiths and no faith.". Who's to say that not believing in a religion means a person has 'no faith'? I have faith in science, nature, etc.

I don't think our country is ready to incorporate religion into the public school curriculum in a secular manner and because of that, I don't think it should be introduced at all.

Monkey Girl - Evolution, Education, Religion, And The Battle For America's Soul

I just started reading Edward Humes' book Monkey Girl about the trial in Dover, Pennsylvania which centered around a young earth creationist led school board trying to teach ID in science class while also attempting to pressure science teachers into irresponsibly implying that evolution is less of an accepted scientific theory than it actual is. These teachers were told to focus on the gaps in the fossil record, the questionable aspects of the theory. Make sure the kids know that it is 'just a theory' rather than truthfully teaching that it is one of the three most proven theories in science to date (along side Newtonian mechanics and germ theory).

The book is difficult to read because it delves very personally into the creationist's motivations and ways of thinking, but it's also something that should be read. It's very easy to have a belief and to disregard those who don't share your beliefs as idiotic or willfully ignorant as a whole with little more motivation for their fears beyond an irrational fear of a vengeful sky daddy. While I feel like this is essentially true, I think that it's important to understand the true weight of that fear and to at least try to put yourself on the other side of the argument as much as possible.

I'm not talking about apologetics - I don't think these people deserve to re-define science, re-write history, or turn the world into some kind of one-religion theocracy simply because they're scared and we should feel sorry for them. I do, however, feel like I belong to the same race as they do and that they at least deserve my compassion. I want to understand creationists and IDers better because I truly don't understand them at all.

We see them as kooks, willfully ignorant simpletons, power hungry indoctrinators, etc. They see us as arrogant, tools of the devil, willfully defiant children of a shared creator, etc. While those labels fit the bill some of the time on either side, most religious people are not moronic sheep with cult mentalities and most atheists or people with similar humanist beliefs are not evil minded snobs. We're all people and we have different conclusions brought about by different experiences in our lives.

I recognize in myself an unshakable belief and understanding of science and evolution and I have said that it would most likely take god himself descending from the sky to make me re-consider my lack of belief in a god or gods. I know that there are some religious people that feel the exact same way about their beliefs - an unshakable belief. My beliefs are rooted in science and logic and because of that, I feel that my beliefs are far closer to the truth than religious beliefs which are rooted in faith and spirituality. What I often forget is that there are plenty of people who feel that faith and spirituality supersede logic and reason. In the minds of people who oppose my beliefs, they are just as correct as I am.

At the end of the day, I still feel that religion is pretty obviously a sham. The Bible was a work of fiction written by entirely mortal men without any divine intervention. God is an outdated human invention to explain things we previously didn't and in some cases still don't understand. Religion was at first a means to explain and then a means to control. However, I do feel that the only way people are going to ever really be able to move past this divide between belief and lack of belief is if we try to look at one another as part of the same whole. The ID side may not ever be able to do that since a lot of their beliefs push them to reject non-believers as an entirely evil and dangerous influence outright, but that doesn't mean I have to do the same in return.

This book is a hard read because it does a very good job of showing the human side of the creationist movement without apologizing for their actions or even offering excuses for their way of thinking. It simply shows them as they are - passionately dedicated people who truly believe in their view of reality at the expense of everything else. If I honestly held a real fear in my heart that my darling son might be damned to an eternal torturous hell for believing in evolution, I can't say that I wouldn't act similarly to the folks who tried (and failed) to force a curriculum which would diminish the scientific importance of evolution - regardless of what anyone else on Earth had to say.

How To Be An Open Minded Parent Without Putting Your Ego Before Your Kid

The comments left for the post where I talked about my neighbor who asked to take my kid to church generated a lot of support, which I appreciate, and some criticism which I also appreciate. I can't say I would have handled the situation differently - I don't feel comfortable with handing my son over to strangers even if they promise they're going to church and I don't feel like I should expose my son to religion until he asks about it and wants to be exposed. However, the subject of being open minded came up a few times along with the question "why would you try to keep your child from experiencing religion?"

I feel like being open minded as a parent is just as important as my responsibility as a parent to raise my son in a way that I feel is best for him until he is at a point where emotionally and mentally he's ready to make his own choices. He makes choices now, but there are still things that I decide for him. I decide if he can have ice cream or not, I decide where he's going to go to school, and I decide who he can go off with without me. The point in time where a child is mature enough to make decisions regarding religion and faith is different for every child - some people have children who are very reality based when they are 6. My son is very imaginative, creative and fanciful. My child is still dealing with the death of my father who was the second closest person to my son after me. My son is not at the same place emotionally and mentally as anyone else's kid and the best judge for what is good and what is bad for him right now is me. Not only because I'm his mom but because I'm closer to him than anyone else alive right now and I'm responsible for tempering his exposure to complicated and mature aspects of life like religion and sex and violence.

I don't understand how anyone would want to willingly expose their child to the situation that woman was suggesting. It's as if by offering up my boy to that kind of influence I would be proving something about my own open mindedness that needs to be proven to a stranger. I don't care if this woman feels that I am open minded enough or not - she's lucky I wasn't in a more curmudgeonly mood and didn't yell at her to stop listening in on private conversations and trying to indoctrinate my son as if my beliefs were somehow unacceptable.

Being open minded regarding parenting does not mean allowing every kook and nut job who walks by to have influence over your child. It does not mean allowing people to be extremely socially rude out of fear of seeming closed off or unfriendly. It has nothing to do with forcing your child to be exposed to or even have an interest in religion when the kid isn't curious about religion at all.

I feel I'm an open minded parent because when my son asks me if god exists I tell him that no one knows for sure, some people think there's a god and some people don't. He's asked me if I believe in god and I told him I didn't. When he asked me why I told him because I read a whole lot of books and talked to a whole lot of people and looked at all the evidence and decided that I didn't believe in god - but that doesn't mean he has to agree with me. I've asked if he wants to attend a church service and he has no interest. That's good enough for me. I'm not going to force my son into attending church just so I can have the atheist open minded parent merit badge. That would be me using my son as a tool to further my ego, not doing what my son wants, what he's interested in at this time, or what I feel he's ready for.

I think it's awesome that there are some people who make it a point to take their kids to lots of different services to give them exposure to religions but that's not my way. Personally, I feel uncomfortable going to a church when I know I have little interest in the place beyond using it as a sociology experiment for my kid. I don't want to go to a church where they take my son and put him in a closed off and separate Sunday school area where I'm not welcomed to join in and I know for a fact my son isn't going to quietly sit through a sermon without asking to go home after about 20 minutes. I do have quite a bit of respect for people and if and how they choose to worship - I don't want to be that atheist who crashes the party just so I can feel good about exposing my kid to a theology which I can't honestly discuss without having a completely negative perspective.

My son will grow up and he will get curious and when he does, it will be time to deal with religion. It isn't yet that time for us and to have a stranger suggest that she might educate my kid on religion without me being present because she overheard I was an atheist and me rejecting her offer does not make me closed minded and it doesn't mean I'm shielding my son from religion. I'm just not forcing him to be interested in it. I think that's the right thing to do.

And now, the best vid on open mindedness on the web - enjoy!

"Can I Take Your Son to Church?"

I was standing outside this morning and my son was playing with his transformer toys in the yard. As I stood there, dazed still from having just woken up, one of my neighbors walked up to me, all smiles and shiny cheeks. I said good morning in my polite but reserved way and she said good morning back but it was obvious she had meandered over to me with a purpose and I waited patently for that purpose to be revealed. The conversation we had was a bit shocking, but also a bit satisfying.

Neighbor Lady: How's it going?

Me: Oh, OK. I work nights so I'm just getting myself up now.

NL: Well it's nice that your son lets you sleep in.

M: Yeah, he's a good boy, I am lucky.

NL: I wanted to ask you about him, we're going to this thing tomorrow and I wanted to know if he could come?

M: Oh yeah, what kind of thing? What time? He's going to hang out with his grandmother sometime tomorrow so it might not work out.

NL: It's in the morning.

This is when I began to get uncomfortable. Tomorrow is Sunday. Sunday morning. She wants to take my son to a 'thing' on Sunday morning. I must have paused for a little too long or was wearing my concern plainly on my face because my neighbor continued -

NL: It's a church thing, but the kids don't really do a lot of the church stuff they just play. I thought he might like it.

M: Well what kind of church thing is it?

NL: Well, it's church. We go to a really nice church down the street and I have heard you and your boyfriend talking about being atheists, but I figure your son might still want to see what it's all about.

M: My 6 year old son?

NL: Well, yeah.

M: You're asking to take my 6 year old kid to a church, knowing that I'm an atheist?

NL: Well, I know you rejected god, but that doesn't mean your boy has to grow up without knowing all his options, right? I'm not trying to offend you...

It was at this point that I took a long pause. I told the neighbor, a very nice lady who I honestly feel wasn't trying to be insulting and who has genuine concerns regarding god, judgment, and hell, that I needed a minute to think about things. She seemed to misinterpret my pause as if I were considering for even a moment allowing my son to go with her but that was fine as she patiently waited while I considered my response.

M: You have the little blond girl, right? The nice girl my son plays with?

NL: Yeah, she's my daughter and she LOVES the church we go to.

M: I want you to consider something and I'm not trying to be mean, I'm trying to prove a point. Were I to come up to you and ask you if I could take your daughter with me and my son to an activity where all of the people there besides your daughter would be atheists 'just to give her another perspective', would you be comfortable with that?

NL: (immediately blurts out) Well of course not!

M: Well then you completely understand why I would rather not have my son go to church with you tomorrow. And for the record, I would never suggest that myself - not for my son or your daughter. Our kids are 6 - I feel like they need to figure out for themselves what they believe and right now, they're still taking in all the possible explanations.

NL: Well, if you want your son to make up his own mind, why would you be opposed to him coming to church with us and checking it out?

M: For one, I think he's too young. More important than that, he's not the one who asked me if he could go to church, you are. He's not yet interested in your faith and I'm not going to push the exposure on him. When he's ready, he'll look into it and if you guys are still living next to us, I'll let him know then that you'll be happy to take him to church with you.

This was the end of the conversation. I don't know if the interaction offended the woman or not, but it shouldn't have. I remember being a kid and being present during similar conversations between my parents and friends and neighbors of theirs. When I was in 5th grade my parents decided I was old enough to go to church with people if I wanted to and I remember going to a Carman concert with some neighbors of mine and feeling like I had stepped into the twilight zone.

The religious practice of 'get 'em while they're young' seems unsavory to me because it takes the minds of people just as willing to accept the existence of Santa Clause or Optimus Prime on faith as anything else, and produces for them a creator god who they are to take on faith is real as well. Then, they take away Santa and Optimus as fanciful, childish things, yet they maintain that god is the real deal? How can you willingly do that to a kid and not consider than you might be messing them up?

Why There Is No Excuse For Child Faith Healing Deaths

I have been closely following the slew of bizarre stories involving child deaths whose parents chose to leave their children's lives in the hands of faith healers and/or the healing power of a perceived god rather than seeking out medical attention for their dying offspring.

Let me start by saying: I have a lot of compassion for these people. It seems to me that they really feel that they are doing the right thing by leaving their kid's fate in the hands of their god. As a parent I can't imagine purposefully denying my child medical treatment even in the event of minor accidents and sicknesses, but I have never had faith either and so I feel that saying these people are completely horrible isn't fair. Maybe it is, I don't know them personally, but I feel like given that I don't know them personally and given what I've read about them, they seemed to love their children the best way they knew how. They seemed to sincerely believe that a physical life on earth was less important than an immortal afterlife and one of the ways they could assure their kids this afterlife was by being what they felt were true Christians.

This is where my compassion quickly sours and falls into rapid decay. You have to ask the question - when the choice to take the child to the doctor is in the parent's hands regardless, is the action of choosing faith in god over proven and accessible medical attention a selfless act for the sake of the child or a selfish act in regard to the parents? More and more I'm inclined to believe that these parents were far less concerned with their children's mortal OR immortal lives and far more focused on proving themselves pious and unquestioning followers to their god - even at the cost of their kid's life. It makes sense that the christian god would ask this of them, according to the bible he's done it before.

I also have to wonder if an action which results in the death of a child can in any way be considered excusable, even when you factor in intent. These parents didn't murder their kids with any malicious intent, but they did stand aside praying while they watched their kids die. I can't reconcile the difference enough in a way that would continue to honor the importance of the child's life.

This makes me feel angry, bitter, upset. Especially when you consider that the woman of one of the dead kids is already pregnant with another child. I find myself hoping for the child's sake that he or she isn't born with any kind of physical abnormality or ever happens to suffer from an ear infection or urinary tract infection. Thankfully in this case the judge has made a strict requirement of the parents that they provide evidence of medical treatment for the not yet born child, both routine and otherwise. I don't feel like that's good enough, but at the same time I don't know what a sensible alternative would be beyond throwing the lot of them in prison until the woman grows old and unable to bear children. This is an emotional response and not a logical or sensible solution - but nothing about these cases could really be considered logical or sensible from the choice of the parents to forgo medical treatment to the death of the child to the sentences rendered in the trials.

I feel compassion for these people because I don't think you can honestly claim that they are trying to hurt their children. My compassion is limited though, to their misguided and archaic opinions in regard to god and medicine. I'm not so compassionate as to argue that they should not have been held accountable for what they did, in fact I feel that the sentences in both recent cases were too lenient. There is no excuse for these child faith healing deaths because no one has the right to take advantage of their position of power and authority over someone else's life and choose death for that person. If that's what your god wants - for you to let your kids die rather than give them insulin, penicillin, or take them to the doctor when they can't breathe without your skilled intervention with a turkey baster, then your god is a sadistic evil being and you are the willing participants of its unspeakably cruel whimsy. That is nothing to feel righteous about.

My Son Vs. The Mormons

An interesting thing happened today. I have a six year old boy, and since he started asking questions about heaven and an afterlife shortly after my father died, I've made it a point to tell him everything I know about every kind of belief. We've talked about heaven, reincarnation, atheism, and a few other related topics and I've always tried to be very clear that I have my own beliefs but that he should decide for himself what he thinks, and that he should take as long as he feels he needs to to make a decision about those beliefs.

I have a sister who is christian and she has a bit of the normal christian accents in her home - prayers on the wall and a few other religious items but nothing overbearing or too intense. When my son was spending a lot of time with my sister he started talking about my dad being in heaven and being an angel and how he wanted to be an angel with him when he died.

It's been difficult at times for me to not scoff or react rudely when my son talks about certain myths, but I have tried very hard to be sure he knows that everyone believes something different and that the only person who can and should decide what my son believes is himself.

Well, today we had some mormons come to the door and I was very polite, as I always am, but firm in letting them know I was in no way interested in their message. The conversation went about like this:

Mormons: Hi, we're in the neighborhood doing mission work.

Me: Oh hey, I'm not at all interested, but thank you anyway.

Mormons: Oh, so you've heard this before then?

Me: Oh yes, I know exactly what you're on about. Sorry, but I'm not interested. Have a nice day though.

Mormons: Nice Futurama poster there on your wall...

Me: Thanks! Have a nice day guys, try to stay cool.

It was at this point that my young son surprised me. He popped out of the bathroom, visibly annoyed and said "My mom is an atheist, she doesn't want to talk to you!" I laughed, a little stunned, but the Mormons seemed concerned. "Well, if she's an atheist, what are you?" Incredulous, my little man replied, "I'm 6! I don't know what I am yet!"

At this point the Mormons went to leave but one of them, presumably trying to be playful, turned and stuck out his tongue at my son, waving his fingers on either side of his face. In response my son put both his hand up in front of his face like claws and hissed at them as they left. I have to assume this struck them as a childish interpretation of a demon, when actually he was mimicking a space alien he often pretends to be.

I'm pretty proud of my son for not declaring he's an atheist only because I am. I'm glad he's leaving himself open to making that decision for himself, but at the same time is not impressed by wandering religionists looking for an excuse to proselytize.

One Atheist Does Not Define Another

I am open about my atheism to everyone I know, at work and otherwise. I work with a few other atheists and I find it endlessly enlightening to discuss any and every topic with them because of how different we all are despite the common thread of atheism which tenuously connects us to one another. Last night I found myself participating in a discussion about civil rights. A woman I work with, I'll call her F, was making a very convincing point that she couldn't understand how someone could justify supporting gay rights but not supporting gun rights.

To be honest, I could see her logic with this and while I understand that the issue of gun rights and the issue of gay rights are different enough for it to be questionable to simplify either issue to the point where it's interchangeable with one another, the basic message was clear - civil rights are paramount and should be protected regardless of your personal biases or opinions. I happen to fully support gay rights and cautiously support gun rights, so this was a point that I easily understood.

Then I brought up the case of the baby who had recently died because her parents believed in faith healing and refused to take the little girl to the doctor and posed the question - do the rights of the parents trump the rights of the child because it's a religious issue or should those parents be charged for child endangerment and/or manslaughter?

I was shocked that my co-worker and very vocal atheist F was quick to say "Oh no, that's religion. That's not an issue of civil rights - you can't mess with that."

I was incensed! How could a fellow atheist honestly feel that religion should be allowed in any way to trump a person's civil rights - especially when that person is a truly helpless child whose very right to live is being put at risk? As a parent I would be madder than hell if someone told me I couldn't raise my kid the way I saw fit and so in that respect, I can understand the emotionally intense feelings behind parental rights. I have to add, currently being of sound body and mind, that if I was ever effed up enough to decide I was justified in allowing my son to come to harm in any way because of my beliefs which I was imposing onto him, I hope someone would have the balls to step in and save my kid from myself.

I argued that the baby had no way to choose the religion, so basically F was saying that the parents were justified in making two decisions for the child which were not their place to make - the first being what religion the kid was and the second being the choice to allow the child to die from an ailment which is easily treated. F said that the Constitution protects religion and a minor is subject to its parent's decisions and that's that.

Other people were present during our conversation and so, as it often does in polite company, the conversation quickly moved away from religion but the couple of minutes that I found myself disagreeing with another atheist about a position which I honestly felt was pretty much universally accepted among atheists of every kind was immensely enlightening.

Atheists really do come in every possible personality and lifestyle and so it becomes even more important for us to focus on unification if we want to be respected, accepted and represented in society. Maybe one of the reasons so many of us tend to focus on the negative aspects of religion so much is because it's the one subject that we all can, on some level, agree on.

Bush Administrations Abstinence Programs Produce Unsavory Results

It would seem that abstinence doesn't work. I know, I know, of course abstinence works if it is honestly adhered to, but according to the latest Centers for Disease Control numbers, the falling rates of teen pregnancies and STD's either stalled or increased, in some cases sharply, by 2005 - Bush's 6th year in office.

According to the CDC, birth rates among teenagers aged 15 or older had been in decline since 1991 but rose sharply in more than half of American states after 2005. The number of teenage girls with syphilis had risen by nearly half after a big decrease, while a 20-year fall in the gonorrhea infection rate was being reversed. AIDS cases in adolescent boys had nearly doubled.

What do abstinence groups say in response to these telling numbers? What is their answer? Why, more abstinence of course! Now, the fact is that even though abstinence is in fact a certain way of not getting pregnant or spreading STD's, it's not a viable solution to teenage pregnancy or STDs. Why? Because teenagers are horny and they are going to get down, whether you give them a condom or tell them to think about Jesus and take a cold shower.

The emphisis should be on a healthy approach to sexuality, not an approach which leans toward shame and ridicule when a person or two people feel compelled to react on completely natural urges. No one should feel strange about having sex or not having sex because it's a personal choice - one that you might make at 15 or 35 - and while as a mom I would hate to think of my beautiful baby boy knocking boots at 15 I would also rather he have every oppertunity to engage in that kind of activity safely and with the utmost amount of education on the subject rather than trying to pull out or perpetuating other ridiculous myths in regard to sex.

Sorry kids, if the chick is on top, she can in fact still get pregnant.

It's no secret that abstinence programs and religious institutions more often than not are interweaved with one another which leads me to ask this question - what needs to happen before these organizations face the fact that less education will never result in positive trends? When will these groups be held accountable for the fact that ignoring the teen pregancy problem by only offering an outdated and unrealistic solution is the same thing as willingly allowing teen pregnancy to become a much much worse issue?

A Word About the Defense of Parenting

Anyone who is a parent understands the instant anger and defensive mindset that comes from having an outside force question your parenting. There is no assertion regarding atheists which angers me more than this - atheists are bad parents.

Let's address first the fact that most of what can be said regarding atheist parentage can also be said of religious parentage. The religious says that atheists will brainwash their kids to reject god, damning them to eventually burn in hell. Atheists can say that the religious will brainwash their kids to be closed off to anything outside of their religion, damning them to a lifetime of slavery to an unquestioned and unsubstantiated doctrine. It continues back and forth, you can fill in the rest.

The arguments that may seem only applicable to atheists are equally matched by arguments only applicable to the religious. The point being that this fashion of argument is equatable to a ideological pissing match between groups who are being defensive and exclusionary - as any parent is when their ability is in question.

Take the statement - "atheists are bad parents" and replace the word atheist with any other group of people and see how ugly of a statement that is. No matter what group you apply that comment to, it's a horrible judgment to make on an entire group of people.