The Atheist Mama

My children were outside playing recently with the neighborhood children, ranging from the ages of about 6 to 8.  It’s nice, because they are finally at an age that they can go outside and play, without constant supervision.  So my youngest (age 6) comes home suddenly very upset and concerned, complaining that he “didn’t want to have to go live in a volcano!!”  Upon further investigation, I learned that he and his friends where having a discussion about God and Jesus.  Apparently, when this conversation took place, my children informed their friends that God was not real.  To that, they replied that if he “didn’t believe in God, that he would have to go and live in a volcano.”  It would be very hot, and he’d be surrounded by fire forever.  Of course, I managed to ease his fears, and told him that he would certainly not be sent to live in a volcano, so matter how much trouble he got into.  I explained the concept of hell, and assured him that it was just a story to scare little boys into being good.

Now, my children are being raised as atheists, but when they hear conflicting information, it’s confusing to them evidently, because then my 6 year old proceeds to tell me that he needs to be careful because Jesus is in his room watching what he does while he’s alone.  !!!!!  Unreal.  Again, I had to convince him that Jesus was NOT watching his every move.  How absurd is it to tell a six year old that he is being watched by an invisible being lurking in his bedroom?  Are scare tactics really necessary to encourage good behavior?    My children are very well behaved, even without the fear of being burned alive and constant surveillance.  I can’t wait to hear what kind of punishment the neighborhood children are being threatened with next!

This was posted on the Americans Against the Tea Party Facebook page. I don’t care what your political or religious beliefs are. This is some funny $hit.

Yes, it has been nearly 4 years (!!!) since my last post.

But I’m still alive!!  I’m even kind of tempted to bring this blog back to life.  It’s definitely in desperate need of a complete overhaul…

Anyway, on January 7, 2011, we sent this letter to our son’s teacher and principal.  We did not get a response…  Thought I’d share.
(Names have been changed)

————————————
Mrs. *****,

Thank you for calling me this morning regarding my concerns about the discussion of the Epiphany.  I also appreciate that you informed me this morning after our son had already arrived at school that there would be a king cake brought into the classroom, and that you gave us an option to remove our son from the activity.  However, it is hardly fair that our son should be removed from an activity that has no business being in the classroom in the first place.  It would have been more appropriate to remove the activity from the classroom.

It’s also concerning to me that you asked our son if he was allowed to be included in the activity when he arrived at school this morning.  We hadn’t discussed the king cake with him before school because we were unaware that it was going to take place in the first place.  His difficulty with communication has made this situation even more difficult.  To be asked, in front of his peers, if he was allowed to participate in this activity was unfair to him and potentially humiliating.

You did tell me that you were unsure of what kind of “trinket” would be hidden in the cake.  However, when our son came home from school today, he informed us that there were two baby Jesus’ hidden in the cake.  He also informed us that there was further discussion of the “three kings.”  I was very surprised to hear this after notifying you yesterday that this topic was inappropriate and my further reiteration to you over the phone this morning that this topic was inappropriate.

Again, it is not possible to talk about baby Jesus or the wise men in a secular manner, and it is clearly not a topic that should be discussed in the classroom, just as it would not be a classroom topic to discuss Muhammad during Ramadan.  These are topics that have been purposefully precedented to not be discussed in a public school; these are topics that are discussed at Sunday school.  We reserve the right to enroll our children in the Sunday school of our choice, not yours.

We fully expect that there will be no more religious doctrine taught in our school and no more religious events planned for the classroom.

As the instructor in the classroom, it is our expectation that you will instruct on academic topics aligning with the curriculum.

As the authority figure in the classroom, it is our expectation that you will assert your authority to control the classroom when inappropriate discussions or behaviors occur — whether they are enacted by students, faculty, or guests.

Please don’t assume that we are intolerant of others’ beliefs.  We are actually very engaged with our children in educating them about the various active belief systems present in the world.  We simply feel it is not fair, especially by an academic institution, to discuss only one point of view on the subject.

We entrust that another situation such as this will not occur again.

Cassandra Cox

I have asked regular contributor Stephen to select the topic of our next conversation.  Here it is:

Would I be correct in assuming you [Allen] do not believe in the existence of life after death?

If so, would I be correct in assuming that you do not, therefore, believe in any sort of eternal judgement? (Let’s say - if there is no God, there is no Judge.)

If my assumptions are correct, is it not hugely, wholly and utterly unfair that evil deeds remain unpunished and un-judged?

I appreciate the element of a tormented conscience in this debate, and the benefits of a clear conscience, but if Judgement does not exist (because there exists no Judge), haven’t the unrepentant evildoers got off, as free as can be?

I’d been looking forward to seeing Iron Man for weeks, and my wife and I finally had the opportunity to see it yesterday. The reviews have been great, and everyone I know who had seen it told me they really enjoyed it. I have to say, however, that I didn’t like it–in fact, I actually hated it. I found the plot tedious and predictable, and the characters flat and unsympathetic. It’s hard to believe it was made by the same company that did the wonderful Spider-Man series.

For those of you who saw it–what am I missing here? Why do I seem to be the only person in North America who isn’t raving about it?

–Allen

To keep the conversations as fresh and original as possible, my first decree as acting Mama is to disallow, disavow, and discourage any invocation of the following: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, and Pascal’s Wager.

Any other hackneyed references or tedious arguments you would add to the list?

–Allen

Just when I thought this particular ad campaign was fading into well-deserved obscurity, it has returned with a renewed vigor and vitality. Meet Bob. Bob is a pitch man for, well, pitching tents as we say in the States. Because he’s so very, very happy about his pharmaceutically-induced erections, he can’t stop grinning like a mental patient every waking hour of the day. Even worse than his insipid smile, however, is the diabolically monotonous whistling throughout the entire commercial which very nearly qualifies as a crime against humanity.
Are there commercials that bother you as much as this one bothers me? (Yes, I know I can change the channel. And I do. I just don’t understand why so many people find this entertaining. ) If so, tell us about them.

–Allen

I have one of those “Born Again� Christian aunts who dutifully forwards me e-mail chain letters about Jesus and angels and prayer, sometimes four or five a day. While I admit they do have a certain entertainment value, it really is frightening that she not only believes this nonsense but feels urgently compelled to share it with everyone she knows.

The following is an excerpt from a particularly inane e-mail with the subject heading “This is what the problem in our nation and schools is about! Read below…� In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, the author quotes from a speech (allegedly) given by the father of a student killed in the Columbine tragedy to illustrate the real cause of this terrible violence:

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You’ve stripped away our heritage,
You’ve outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms ,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question “Why?”
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet, you fail to understand,
That God is what we need! (emphasis mine)

and at the end:

“As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right!

I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA — I give to you a sincere challenge.

Dare to examine your
own heart before casting the first stone!

My daughter’s death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!”

Do what the media did not - - let the nation hear this man’s speech.. Please send this out to everyone you can. God Bless. (emphasis mine)

Speaking as a teacher who has worked in a public school for over ten years, these accusations are patently ridiculous. While there are restrictions on compulsory prayer or Bible reading, students are free to pray voluntarily, read the Bible or other religious texts, and organize religious groups and clubs on campus.

What’s even more galling, however, is the implication that these horrific events are a direct result of the mythical outlawing of prayer, specifically Christian prayer, in public school. What evidence is offered? None. Statistical correlation? Nope. Peer-reviewed research? Nah. Just ignorant, opportunistic propaganda.

Needless to say, I “broke the chain.” Sorry, Auntie.

–Allen

So, my wife and I take our son to one of the local McDonald’s with the attached playroom, and no sooner had we started eating when one family of kids starts to climb on stacked high chairs and the window ledges, no less. Then they start grabbing food trays to take with them on the play equipment when one older boy grabs a younger one’s foot and pulls him down from the ladder he was climbing. The younger child starts crying, of course, and the bully who pulled him down has this really amused smile on his face. When another child in the family asks the bully why he hurt the other one, the bully says he didn’t do anything, and a very loud argument that includes the “f” word breaks out. And where was good ol’ mom? In the main restaurant, of course, doing who knows what.

The point of this rather pointless episode is simply to ask you this: When, if ever, do you step in to discipline or scold children that are not your own?

–Allen

Lynn’s Daughter’s comment about her atheist bumper sticker in the previous post inspired me to ask: What kind of atheist or anti-religious stickers or emblems or what-not do you display on your vehicle(s)? Has anyone ever reacted to or commented about them? And if you don’t have anything like that, would you consider it? Ever?

The picture on the left is the emblem I’d like to put on my car, but I haven’t had the nerve…yet. I am an elementary school teacher in a conservative city in California, and I know many parents and most of the teachers I work with would not appreciate this display one little bit.

–Allen

All right, look around and remember where you were when you heard the news that Representative Pete Stark is openly atheist, the first one in American history!

I highly recommend you send him a positive message before the righteous backlash begins.

Whatever his politics may be, you have to admire his courage.

–Allen

I think one of the reasons that atheism is so maligned and misunderstood is because, by definition, atheism is a negative term. By that I mean it describes what we reject or don’t believe, but not what we accept or promote. Many religious people are instantly put on the defensive by the name alone.

Not only that, but most of the atheists they see are the ones they perceive taking away their rights in lawsuits or blaspheming The Holy Spirit on YouTube. Or ridiculing them on blogs like this one.

While defending atheism and criticizing religious beliefs are important and necessary, I think the time has come to include a different approach.

We atheists must begin to explain what we are for, what we value, and what we can offer instead of religion. We must go out into our communities openly and simply do good. No debates, no confrontations; just engage in something positive.

That’s my vision, anyway. I’d really enjoy getting a group of atheists together in my own town to do some volunteer work, and maybe it will inspire other people in other places to do the same. Then perhaps, some time in the future, we will begin to be treated with a little more respect and tolerance.

Is this a good idea? Am I naive? Or am I some kind of traitor to “the cause?�

–Allen

This is going to sound sensational and provocative to our religious audience in particular, but I don’t intend it to be. It is simply a sincere attempt to explain something that may be very difficult for believers to accept.

For much of human history, including our world today, many people have insisted one can’t be moral without a belief in one or more divine beings, usually the one or ones they themselves prefer. I have concluded, however, the opposite is true: one can’t truly be a moral person until one rejects any and all gods.

When I was a believing Catholic, I was often promised the wonders of heaven if I did what the Church taught was good, and the tortures of hell if I didn’t. Over time, however, this struck me as very cynical and insidious, and instead of inspiring me, it actually undermined my ability to make moral decisions. When I did good things, it was because they made me and others feel happy, not because I was hoping for a big payoff in the afterlife. In the same way, I rejected evil because it was wrong, not because I wanted to avoid eternal punishment.

In the end, I wanted to do the right thing for its own sake, not simply because some god or church or so-called sacred text commanded it. At that point, I began to see myself as a fully-realized moral being. Free from divine bribes and threats, I could determine what was good and evil through compassion, understanding, and reason. I could focus on making this, the only life we know of, as loving and fulfilling as possible.

Does this make me a deserving candidate for hell, as the Church and many others believe?

–Allen

I recently came across this image entitled “Forgiven.”

Maybe it’s just me, but…let’s just say there may be some interpretations the artist probably didn’t intend.

Am I wrong?

–Allen

It’s okay, folks, everything’s fine! The Reverend Jerry Falwell, champion of science and reason, assures us all that global warming is just part of a liberal conspiracy to distract Christians from their “heavenly purpose.” Thank you so much for setting us all straight on that burning issue, Jer.

Don’t know what I was worried about…

–Allen

Just so our Christian or other religious readers don’t feel excluded from this ongoing conversation about evidence: What experience or reason would you need to convince you that God doesn’t exist?

–Allen

Why doesn’t the Bible explicitly prohibit slavery?

Millions of men, women and children all over the world for thousands of years have suffered and continue to suffer today under slavery in one form or another.

Can it truly be called “The Good Book” when it fails to condemn something that is so obviously evil?

–Allen

I was in the back room of a church while at a Catholic wedding when I took this picture. I was shocked when I saw that the Body of Christ came in packaging just like saltines would. When I was younger and in Catholic school, I always saw the host come out of a very ornate gold and silver safe looking thing (the name of this storage device escapes me).

They probably have boxes of The Body of Christ somewhere. Have you ever eaten one of these? They’re pretty tasty… I could totally sit down with some Blood of Christ and snack on some Body of Christ while watching TV.

Finally, let me explain what would evidence I would need to be convinced that God exists.

Let me be very specific here, because as Jim shrewdly observed in the original post, there have been thousands of different gods worshipped by millions of people over many, many centuries.

So, then, what would convince me that Jesus Christ in particular (and no other gods) exists?

For a start, I would like to examine the wounds in Christ’s hands and side just as one of His disciples, Thomas, did before he would believe (John 20:24-29). Failing that, I suppose being blinded by a heavenly light and being spoken to directly by Jesus as Saul (later Paul) experienced would be acceptable as well (Acts 9:1-19).

But this isn’t how it works, the believer may argue. One must have faith. Indeed, as the account of Doubting Thomas teaches, believing without seeing is a virtue. The Lord will not be tempted to prove His existence. So, we are left with a sort of stalemate.

Oddly enough, science may provide a way out of this quandary. But again, the believer may object. As I once heard a television preacher proclaim,“You can’t put God in a test tube!�

And he’s probably right—the supernatural is, by definition, (rather conveniently) beyond the reach of science.

However, if one believes that Jesus can affect the material world, those effects can be observed, examined, and measured empirically. If, for example, one claims that praying to Jesus can cure cancer, an experiment can be put together to test it. After careful planning and consideration of all other variables, one group of cancer patients can pray for healing in the name of Jesus, another in the name of Allah, another in the name of Zeus, and, of course, there would be a control group where no one prays at all. The results of the experiment could then be analyzed to see if the patients who prayed to Jesus had a significantly higher rate of recovery than the other groups.

If the results were positive, and consistently repeated in different and numerous studies, this would be something I would consider as evidence.

But if the latest prayer study with heart patients is any indication, I don’t think I’ll be “saved� any time soon.

–Allen

Well, I did promise to explain what evidence I would need to conclude that God exists, and that will be coming soon.

First, I’d like to respond to a few of the comments from the original post. Anatoliy Russ writes:

For a true believing atheist no evidence would be enough to dissuade him or her from abandoning their belief. The mind of an atheist has made its decision and even a dramatic sign from the heavens could be explained away. I’m sure that the only evidence that can convince a true atheist is dying and seeing what happens next.

This is patently false and can be proven so with a minimum of effort. The world is full of atheists who have found Jesus and preachers who have turned atheist and everything in between. I think Anatoily needs to get out of the compound a little more often.

And then there was sweet, sweet Shanilie:

Hi, I just came across your blog today. I have to admit that I haven’t really ever met an atheist before.

It that’s true, it’s her loss. But seriously, how does she know she hasn’t ever met an atheist? Does she interrogate everyone she meets about their beliefs? I think it’s much more likely she knows and has known more atheists than she thinks. We’re everywhere! (Cue maniacal laughter and sinister organ music.)

I have met many who don’t believe in God but are open to the possibility and not so self proclaimed as yourself.

Lord, how many times must atheists explain this to people like her? Let me put it this way: just how “open to the possibility” are most people that Zeus or Thor or Ra exist? Not very, right, if at all? I mean, even though they can’t prove they don’t exist, they don’t lose any sleep at night wondering if they’re wrong. That’s the level of certainty I have that your particular god, Shanilie, is nonsense, too. Got it?

Sometimes the only reason I believe in God is because beauty can give me Goosebumps. Stupid, yes?

Well…yes. I suppose we agree on something after all.

I smile when I hear about people calling themselves an atheist because in saying it, they are in fact referring to God, you are finding reasons not to believe and in doing so you have to be told otherwise….Another reason I smile is because there must be some shred of hope of existence of God left in you because you are desperately seeking to hear what you want to hear…

Really, is that a smile, or a smug, patronizing smirk? And just how would she know so much about atheists’ motivations when she obviously doesn’t understand the first thing about us?

Before this post gets any longer, I’ll stop it here. Very soon, I will have a few more things to say about some other comments, and I’ll be sure to tell you about God and the evidence I’d need to be convinced She exists.

–Allen