Atheists are America’s most distrusted minority.

Posted by Les on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 at 02:12 PM. Read 3369 times. Tags:
{name} pic

Several other blogs have picked up on this and I’m late to the game, but what the hell, I blame it on my WoW addiction.

It’s true, I am the guy your mother warned you about.

According to a new survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology Atheists are considered to be bad, bad people by the majority of Americans:

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

The parents of the first woman I asked to marry me weren’t thrilled with the idea of their daughter marrying an atheist and they worked hard to bring about the end of our relationship once we got engaged. It wasn’t the sole reason our relationship fell apart, but it was a factor in it and it left a bad taste in my mouth. Which is why I was so surprised at how accepting my in-laws are of my unbelief despite the fact that they are a reasonably religious family, certainly more so than my own family ever was.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.

Edgell also argues that today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.

I’ll give ‘em the materialism and even the cultural elitism, but criminal behavior? Folks, check your prisons and you’ll find the majority of people in there are good old fashioned believers who are supposedly all moral and upstanding thanks to their religious beliefs. Least represented belief group proportionally speaking? Atheists. Must be that cultural elitism making us so damned clever we never get caught or something.

Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said. “Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good.”

Which is really ironic to me considering that the vary majority of truly apathetic and self-centered people I’ve known in my life have been true believers while the vast majority of people I’ve known that actually gave a damn about the common good were atheists. It’s entirely possible that my personal experiences are different from the norm, but I haven’t any reason to suspect that is the case.

The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.

Being more educated makes you more accepting of other’s differences, or in other words, more liberal?!? GASP! Whodathunkit?

In all seriousness, there’s not a whole lot in this new survey that we atheists haven’t known for a long time already. The archive here at SEB has similar entries about previous surveys/studies that have said the same thing. We already know that an openly gay politician with a felony record and an alcohol problem would still be more likely to be elected to political office than an openly atheist candidate. We are the people you love to hate and that’s likely to stay that way for awhile yet to come. So long as being stupid remains fashionable at least.

Not that I’m complaining as entry into The Evil Atheist Conspiracy gets us these wicked cool black capes and long “Snidely Whiplash” mustaches that we can twirl in a sinister fashion as we cook up our plots to take over the world. 

Comments:

Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

Moloch United States Posted on 03/29/2006 at 03:01 PM

Moloch pic

“...university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups...”

I’m so proud to be an athiest. Looks like being called a Nazi is actually a notch UP in the social ladder.

 Signature 

Gimbatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.

Tina United States Posted on 03/29/2006 at 04:01 PM

Tina pic

And this is precisely why I’m a closet atheist.

***Dave United States Posted on 03/29/2006 at 05:08 PM

***Dave pic

I’d make a joke about how I think lesbians are cooler than atheists, too, but someone would probably get offended.

*cough*

Anyway, two thoughts:

1.  People are uncomfortable with the unfamiliar.  The idea of people having a moral/ethical code that isn’t, in some fashion, associated with religion is scarier than codes even based on unfamiliar religions.  ("You’re a Buddhist?  Well, at least you believe in God.") For someone to consciously and intentionally develop a code of behavior without relying explicitly on religious dictates is terrifying to a lot of people, both because they feel it invalidates their own code and because it points to, perhaps, their own unwillingness to examine it.

2.  People mistake atheism, per se, with “lawlessness.” Thus the association with criminal behavior.  Most criminals are, as you note, not conscious atheists—at most, many might be defiant *of* God, or claim that they don’t believe, but that’s different from you, Les, who’s actually thought this whole atheism thing through.  It’s as unfair to say that atheists are more likely to be criminals because they don’t believe in God as it is to say that theists are more likely to be criminals because they think God tells them to do crazy things.

In reality, the folks in prison, whether ostensibly religious or not, are their because of their immoral behavior.  The vast majority are not (with the exception of, say, prisoners of conscience) there because they’ve made a reasoned decision that God does not exist, thus, cry havoc and grab a TV set.  Nor are they there because, well, they think Jesus forgives, and thus, hey, He’ll forgive me for grabbing this TV set, too.  They’re there because of greed and lust and anger and all the other deadly sins.  The folks in prison are there (for the vastly most part) because they *didn’t* follow the religion they claim, not because they decided to be atheists.  They’re lazy/irresponsible theists (or lazy/irresponsible atheists, I suppose), not a good example of either category.

But that is, I fear, too nuanced for a lot of people to grasp.  They don’t understand how people can follow rules if they don’t believe in some rule-giver to reward/punish them.

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 03/29/2006 at 05:20 PM

Sadie Jane pic

On a tangentially related note, I remember reading a statistic somewhere that said that drug addicts (in this day and age) tend to be highly traditional types and, as such, likely believe in god.

Mind you, I do drugs occasionally for recreational purposes, yet I am far from being an addict and I pride myself on my unconventionality.

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

Brock United States Posted on 03/29/2006 at 05:25 PM

Brock pic

When I first read the results of this study I was excited to finally be able to come here and say neener neener neener and then it occurred to me that I may have gained stature only to lose it for being an atheist too.

I’m very confused where I stand with bragging rights. Am I one-half above other atheists or twice as damned?

I hate not knowing my true worth!

 Signature 

“At six I was left an orphan.  What the hell is a six year old supposed to do with an orphan?”
Unknown

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 03/29/2006 at 05:35 PM

Sadie Jane pic

What about feminist, hippie, Pagan/Wiccan, childless-by-choice, bisexual young women such as myself? I’ve gotta be pretty low on the respectability and trustworthiness meters as far as most Americans are concerned (and damn proud of it). LOL

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

EyesOnly Great Britain (UK) Posted on 03/29/2006 at 05:48 PM

EyesOnly pic

Sexy Sadie on 3/29/06 at 05:35 PM wrote the following…
What about feminist, hippie, Pagan/Wiccan, childless-by-choice, bisexual young women such as myself? I’ve gotta be pretty low on the respectability and trustworthiness meters as far as most Americans are concerned (and damn proud of it). 

Probably so far out there that you aren’t even detectable on the long range scanners.

Brock United States Posted on 03/29/2006 at 05:53 PM

Brock pic

Probably so far out there that you aren’t even detectable on the long range scanners.

Yeah, you win, Sadie.

 Signature 

“At six I was left an orphan.  What the hell is a six year old supposed to do with an orphan?”
Unknown

LuckyJohn19 Australia Posted on 03/29/2006 at 06:01 PM

LuckyJohn19 pic

I’m always a bit suss when I hear a survey came up with this or that conclusion. wink
I remember an episode of Yes, Prime Minister (The Ministerial Broadcast 1986)
http://www.yes-minister.com/episodes.htm where Sir Humphrey showed Bernard that How you word a question, or rather the Preceding questionS, determines the response to The question.
It was to do with ‘are you for or against National Service?’ Humpy asked a question one way then asked it another way to elicit the ‘right’ response.
Hear it here: http://www.yes-minister.com/sounds/ypm12q1.ram

Or if you don’t have Real player or can’t be bothered looking up the other site:
Sir Humphrey: “You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don’t want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Do you think they respond to a challenge?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?”
Bernard Woolley: “Oh...well, I suppose I might be.”
Sir Humphrey: “Yes or no?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can’t say no to that. So they don’t mention the first five questions and they publish the last one.”
Bernard Woolley: “Is that really what they do?”
Sir Humphrey: “Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren’t many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result.”
Bernard Woolley: “How?”
Sir Humphrey: “Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Are you worried about the growth of armaments?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample.”

As I said, results of surveys are always suss.
Yes, Minister & YPM, had a lot to do with teaching me to be cynical; especially about government and politicians.
Sir Humphrey: “Surveillance is an indispensable weapon in the battle against organized crime.”
Jim Hacker: “You’re not describing politicians as organized crime?”
Sir Humphrey: “No...well, disorganized crime too of course.” LOL

 Signature 

I’ve discovered that it all boils down to brain wiring: your brain is wired to worship magic or it isn’t, either it’s wired to utilize logic or it isn’t, either it’s analytical of myths or it isn’t.

Doctor M United States Posted on 03/29/2006 at 10:44 PM

Doctor M pic

I would love to know where the LaVeyan Satanists fall.

Not only are they an extremely miniscule percentage, the very mention of the word ‘Satan’ shocks and horrors.
As it is intended to, however, so we’re all good. They’re just helping people like myself accomplish their mission.

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 03/29/2006 at 11:09 PM

Sadie Jane pic

Yeah, I would imagine that Satanists are more deplorable in the popular American psyche than are atheists. Perhaps even more deplorable than me. wink

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

Wal Australia Posted on 03/30/2006 at 12:24 AM

Wal pic

From “How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered The World—A Short History of Modern Delusions”, by Francis Wheen, published last year by Harper Perennial. An absolutely ripping yarn ...

The genius of America’s founding fathers was to guarantee freedom of religion and freedom from religion simultaneously. In the words of the First Amendment: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’. ... I’m passionately in favour of freedom of religion just so long as we have freedom from religion as well and I don’t have the Pope telling me that the sun revolves around the earth and that I’ve got to say the same or else it’s the rack for me, matey.

Elsewhere in the same book, I came across this note:

A Gallup poll in June 1993 found that only 11 per cent of Americans accepted the standard secular account of evolution, that ‘human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process’; 35 per cent thought that humans evolved over millions of years, but with divine guidance; and 47 per cent maintained that ‘God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the past 10,000 years or so’—the creation story as told in the Book of Genesis. Other polls at about the same time discovered that 49 per cent of Americans believed in demonic possession, 36 per cent in telepathy and 25 per cent in astrology; and that no fewer than 68 per cent approved of creationism being taught in biology classes.

... so nothing in your claim surprises me.

I’m an out-of-towner (I live down in godzone country, Oz) who lived in the midwest for some three years, and I’ve never forgotten the result of a newspaper survey I saw there once—well, I’ve forgotten the detail, but the general thrust was that (some significant percentage of the population) believed they would wind up in a fairly conventional notion of heaven; but a far greater percentage believed they knew someone who was for-sure going to hell!

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 03/30/2006 at 12:29 AM

elwedriddsche pic

Yeah, I would imagine that Satanists are more deplorable in the popular American psyche than are atheists.

I doubt it. Whackjobs, easily dismissed.

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

zilch Austria Posted on 03/30/2006 at 01:05 AM

zilch pic

“Sure, Satanists worship the source of all evil.  But at least they buleeve!”

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 03/30/2006 at 01:06 AM

Sadie Jane pic

Of course, to some True Believers the distinction between atheism and Satanism is nonexistant, or both mindsets are viewed as part of the same continuum.

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

Patness Canada Posted on 03/30/2006 at 01:43 AM

Patness pic

Y’know, as a generally amoral human being who happens to be an agnostic/atheist, even having little moral fiber has nothing to do with it. I can guage my own experiences and those of others to things that are not moral and get by.

I don’t have to look at killing as an “immoral nono” to realize that it’s something with huge risk factors and little reward. Likewise, if I got the chance to kill Hitler, I’d probably do it, since I see a reward in tune with doing so (fulfilling some aspect of the world I’d like to live in). Lots of perfectly moral people would make excuses for performing an immoral act. In that way, I tend to think I’m fortunate. I’m not faced with moral conflicts that inhibit me from meeting my goals.

I contend that being amoral - even immoral - does not necessarily mean being at odds with your society. Even a nutjob can share your vision of the world in some respects.

 Signature 

The Kidney Punch Of Legendary Peace

One sure and primary and fundamental fact is the joint existence of a subject and of its world. The one does not exist without the other. I acquire no understanding of myself except as I take account of objects, of the surroundings. I do not think unless I think of things — and there I find myself. - Bruce Lee

hodge United States Posted on 03/30/2006 at 02:46 AM

hodge pic

Fuck, I’m really getting tired of how christians believe that all Atheists, wiccans and satanist are the source of all “evil”. What the hell is it with christians looking for scapegoats like how many of them consider products like harry potter, doom and dungeons & dragons to be “evil”.

It would be nice if less christians would say random stuff out of ignorance. Perhaps if they did some research they could figure out that Anton Levey didn’t even believe in satan existence.

ingolfson New Zealand (Aotearoa) Posted on 03/30/2006 at 03:14 AM

ingolfson pic

I live down in godzone country, Oz

Hey, I though we Kiwis were in the Godzone?

Not that I am one per se yet…

As for the atheism - I do not hide it, but to my shame I do hesitate sometimes before stating it, or hide behind the less strict label ‘agnostic’.

NZ is not as religious as the US by far, but surely is much more so than myy old Germany.

LuckyJohn19 Australia Posted on 03/30/2006 at 06:25 AM

LuckyJohn19 pic

Ingie:

Hey, I though we Kiwis were in the Godzone?

Nah - it’s the Ozone - that’s why it’s called the ...

Ingie:

NZ is not as religious as the US by far, but surely is much more so than my old Germany.

Yep, but, settle petal - give it a bitte (a stretched pun) time.
ALL western ‘civilisation’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:West.png incl Oz & NZ will, eventually, bow to the extremes of US ‘civilisation’. Polar bears, mate - leap = polarisation = will happen.

Civilisation = Gandhi was once asked by a reporter: What do you think of Western Civilisation? Ghandi: It’d be a good idea, wouldn’t it?  LOL
Yeah, mate. rotflmao
See? It doesn’t take much t’ get me goin’.

 Signature 

I’ve discovered that it all boils down to brain wiring: your brain is wired to worship magic or it isn’t, either it’s wired to utilize logic or it isn’t, either it’s analytical of myths or it isn’t.

Les United States Posted on 03/30/2006 at 07:14 AM

Les pic

I’d like to address Tina’s comment…

And this is precisely why I’m a closet atheist.

...and say that this survey is exactly why I’m not a closet atheist. The false perceptions people hold about atheists aren’t going to be changed if we hide in the closet.

Despite the rather gruff image I have on this website most folks who know me in real life tend to think I’m a pretty nice guy, if somewhat scary looking thanks to my beard. I seem all mean and angry here because I mainly use this as a means of venting my frustrations which is why I can be a nice guy later when I have to go out into the world and interact with all the idiots.

I don’t wear my atheism on my sleeve, but I also don’t hesitate to mention the fact should my religious affiliation come up in the course of a discussion, which it often eventually does with some folks. A lot of people are quite literally shocked to find out I’m an atheist and more than a few have had a seriously hard time coming to grips with the preconceptions they have held about what atheists are like and the reality of what I am actually like. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had someone say to me, “But.. you’re a nice guy!” Thank you, I try.

I’m not about to go around “outing” closet atheists, but I do wish to encourage folks to consider coming out and sharing their point of view with others. This doesn’t mean you have to challenge every person who makes a religious claim in front of you to a knife fight or anything like that, but don’t deny the fact that you are a good person and an atheist should the question come up. Only by putting the lie to the stereotype is it ever going to change.

 Signature 

Gods dont kill people. People with Gods kill people. - David Viaene

Tina United States Posted on 03/30/2006 at 07:47 AM

Tina pic

I’d like to address Tina’s comment…

Les, this makes perfect sense. My family knows that I am, at the very least, agnostic, but they take this to mean that I am “confused” and will believe again someday. I can’t get them to “get” it, but they are southern baptists/evangelicals so I doubt they relent in their attitudes. Funny, I don’t feel confused and I’m more at peace believing in nothing than I ever was with the teachings of my family.

I guess where I’m most in the closet is at work. I’m slowly learning the religious beliefs of my coworkers and it looks like I’m the odd one out. I don’t need people proselytizing to me at work so I keep my mouth shut. Plus, I don’t know how to explain how I came to be a non-believer without being condescending toward their beliefs. How do you do that?

I had a student last semester who wrote a paper on this very issue. She interviewed people of varying beliefs and measured (I forget how she did this) their morals. I was so optimistic that she had even thought about this (this was community college) but was disappointed in her results. Her atheist? Her deadbeat ex-husband. You can imagine what sweeping generalizations she made with such a “sample.” On the last day of the semester I had a few students left over from my class (a devout and outspoken muslim, a baptist, a methodist, etc.) and while we were talking about her paper, I outted myself. They asked about my morals and I told them my goal is to treat others as I’d like to be treated because, to me, that’s just common sense. Of course, they attributed this to my being brought up in a very religious family. As if I would have no morals if I hadn’t been exposed to *some* religion. Ugh!

Kysstfafm United States Posted on 03/30/2006 at 08:33 AM

Kysstfafm pic

Only by putting the lie to the stereotype is it ever going to change.

Good point Les, and on the same vein how can we correct the imperfect view of America as predominantly a Christian nation if all the non-believers stay quiet (for fear of persecution - as often as not - of all things)? Can’t even begin to add up all the things that are accepted by (supposedly all of) the majority of American society that when examined quite closely do not belong in the belief system of a true Christian (if they are honest and intelligent enough to spot the problems).
Kysstfafm United States Posted on 03/30/2006 at 08:55 AM

Kysstfafm pic

Perhaps I should restate (just a tad) so that somebody won’t come along thinking I meant something else - I could probably enumerate a number of things, it would just take more time than I currently have to dedicate to the process to do it justice. How many nanoseconds in a lifetime?

Les United States Posted on 03/30/2006 at 10:07 AM

Les pic

Some good questions here. First let me tackle Tina’s follow up:

Les, this makes perfect sense. My family knows that I am, at the very least, agnostic, but they take this to mean that I am “confused� and will believe again someday. I can’t get them to “get� it, but they are southern baptists/evangelicals so I doubt they relent in their attitudes. Funny, I don’t feel confused and I’m more at peace believing in nothing than I ever was with the teachings of my family.

Unfortunately this is a common coping mechanism among many believers, particularly among those who honestly care about our well being. For the most part I generally don’t argue the point if it’s just going to agitate them. As with any conversation on a sensitive subject you just have to try and gage if there’s likely to be any benefit to continuing an argument with someone who’s having trouble understanding your point of view. I’m told that my father-in-law thinks I’m a better Christian than most Christians he knows and that I just don’t realize that deep down I’m really a good Christian who’s just a bit confused. There’s no real benefit in arguing with him about it and, in its own way, it’s a form of a compliment so I let it slide. That doesn’t mean I don’t remind him of my atheism when it comes up during discussions on religion and I think that the reality is slowly sinking in simply by my patience with him about it.

Changing minds takes time, education and patience. Certainly some people will stubbornly refuse to modify their views, but I’ve found those folks tend to be in the minority. The study I linked to in my entry tells us that one of the factors that influences people’s attitudes about atheists is their “exposure to diversity.” A lot of people interact with atheists on a daily basis without ever knowing it and that allows their preconceptions to continue.

I guess where I’m most in the closet is at work. I’m slowly learning the religious beliefs of my coworkers and it looks like I’m the odd one out. I don’t need people proselytizing to me at work so I keep my mouth shut. Plus, I don’t know how to explain how I came to be a non-believer without being condescending toward their beliefs. How do you do that?

Things may be different where you live, but in my experience being proselytized at work hasn’t been much of a problem. Of course I’m a PC Systems Administrator so when most folks at work interact with me there’s a more pressing problem in their minds than whether or not I’m hell bound. It happens occasionally, but not often and usually I can get the message across that I’m not open to being proselytized without having to be nasty about it.

More commonly this sort of conversation ends up taking place outside of work. The last time this happened to me was a couple of weeks ago when I was filing my taxes at H&R block. A friend of the family who works for that company has been doing my taxes for years and when I was dropping off the forms at the office that day I ended up in a conversation with the office assistant at the front desk because my friend was busy with another client.

At one point, for reasons I don’t recall, she asked me which church I attended and I explained that I was an atheist. Her reaction was pretty much what I mentioned earlier in terms of her having a hard time reconciling her image of me as a nice guy with the sudden realization that I was hell bound. It’s a conversation I’ve had a number of times in the past and I’m always a little bemused by the predictable nature of it all so it can be hard at times not to smirk a little when going through it again. I managed this by reminding myself that this nice lady was sincerely concerned for my well being and meant no offense. I stuck to brief explanations and simple analogies for the most part and she eventually dropped the conversation on her own mainly because she didn’t like to think about me going to hell. When I got the usual “I’ll pray for you” line it was clear this wasn’t meant as a threat the way some believers like to use it so much as a genuine sentiment and I thanked her for her concern.

The trick, of course, is in trying to recognize the intentions of the people talking to you. I can be short and gruff with folks who obviously don’t really give a shit about my well being so much as their own sense of self-righteousness, but I can be very patient with folks who seem to be sincere in their questions. Ignorance isn’t incurable, but there’s no quick fix for it either.

I had a student last semester who wrote a paper on this very issue. She interviewed people of varying beliefs and measured (I forget how she did this) their morals. I was so optimistic that she had even thought about this (this was community college) but was disappointed in her results. Her atheist? Her deadbeat ex-husband. You can imagine what sweeping generalizations she made with such a “sample.�

Indeed, but if that’s the only atheist she’s ever had any exposure to then it’s not entirely surprising she’s misinformed. Just as with any belief group, there are plenty of atheists out there who are less than upstanding human beings.

On the last day of the semester I had a few students left over from my class (a devout and outspoken muslim, a baptist, a methodist, etc.) and while we were talking about her paper, I outted myself. They asked about my morals and I told them my goal is to treat others as I’d like to be treated because, to me, that’s just common sense. Of course, they attributed this to my being brought up in a very religious family. As if I would have no morals if I hadn’t been exposed to *some* religion. Ugh!

Again, that’s a common perception that can’t be quickly fixed on the last day of the semester. It’s not always easy to verbalize your reasons when you’re suddenly put on the spot like that so try not to be too disappointed with how the conversation went. It also helps if you’ve devoted some time to exploring why you hold those particular views as the more you’ve thought about it the more likely you are to come up with a concise explanation when questioned on it.

As for the Golden Rule, in the future you may want to mention the fact that variations on it show up in a majority of the world’s cultures and religions. It’s known as the ethic of reciprocity. It’s not a concept unique to Christianity nor did it originate with that religion (though it is a big part of it), but a lot of folks aren’t aware of that fact. The first recorded instance of the concept is thought to appear in The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant circa 1970-1640 BCE out of Ancient Egypt. In comparison, the Christian version supposedly occurred during the Sermon on the Mount circa 100 CE and there are several other examples of the same concept showing up in other texts between those two periods.

 Signature 

Gods dont kill people. People with Gods kill people. - David Viaene

zilch Austria Posted on 03/30/2006 at 10:44 AM

zilch pic

Nice comment, Les.  It’s easy to forget how different things are in the States nowadays.  I can count the number of times a stranger here in Austria has asked me about my religion on the fingers of one foot.  Being an atheist is no big deal here.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main