It is almost a given in our society that kids should be raised with religion, because if they aren’t they will grow up to be juvenile delinquents, right? Wrong. Wronger than wrong. Not even wrong. The assumption is so bigoted and breathtakingly inane that it doesn’t deserve a debunking, but it gets one nonetheless in this volume, from nonbelievers of all stripes, who show how and why raising children without religion is not only a loving and ethical approach to parenthood, it is an honorable one.
– Michael Shermer

The preceding quote is from the forward to Dale McGowan’s Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion, a collection of essays on raising children with a nonreligious, skeptical worldview.  Reasonable, honest atheists would never claim that raising a child with religious belief would by nature cause the child to grow up as a bad person (although some might argue that such belief can lead toward some unfortunate intellectual consequences), as no honest religious person would likewise claim about us.

The dishonest anti-atheist bigots, though, have no such scruples.  They ignore the fact that morals come from many sources, and that religion in practice has no historically valid claim to moral perfection.  That is, considering that the majority of people on our planet are religious to some degree, crime and acts that would be considered “immoral” by the religion’s own standards are still common by those who follow such faiths.  Clearly, being raised with religious belief does not in any way guarantee that one will be a “good person,” however that is defined.

If being raised with religious belief doesn’t in any way suggest one will end up a good person, there is no logical reason to think that the lack of such would make a child any more likely to turn out badly.  The burden of proof then gets even harder for the bigots to meet.  Being unable to logically suggest that the lack of religion during childhood would necessarily lead to negative consequences, they must show evidence that those without religion are more likely to be immoral.  There is no evidence at all for such an assertion.

It’s abundantly clear that the claim that instilling religious belief is needed for good parenting comes not from any evidence or even a logical train of thought, but simply from bigotry against the nonreligious.  The bigots come to the discussion with their minds made up from day one.  They know atheists cannot be good people, no matter how many atheists exist that would fit their definition of a good person save simply lacking religious belief.  No matter the facts, atheists will always be fatally flawed, and even bad people, because they are.  No evidence will ever sway them from this.  Just as an avowed racist will, in general, never accept that a black person can be an equal to them, it is the same with the anti-atheist bigots.  That’s what makes it bigotry, after all.

Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not being pessimistic.  We still need book like this, not only to let nonreligious parents know they are not alone, but to counter such notions in those who have been swayed by what I have frequently called the “pervasive bigotry” against the nonreligious in America but have not fallen fully into the mind-poison of bigotry.  We should and can show them that we are just like everyone else.  Some of us are good people and some of us aren’t, just like anyone else whether religious or not.

I’m not going to go into all of my arguments against tax payer funding of religious social services organizations again.  I know when to admit I’ve been beaten; Jacoby presents those and further arguments much better than I ever could.  Read her article and you will get more out of it than I can give you.

Excerpt:

It is truly dismaying that amid all the discussion about President Obama’s version of faith-based community initiatives, there has been such a widespread reluctance to question the basic assumption that government can spend money on religiously based enterprises without violating the First Amendment. The debate has instead focused on whether proselytizing or religious hiring discrimination should be permitted when church groups take public money. This shows how easy it is to institutionalize a bad idea based on unexamined assumptions about service to a greater good.

There are good and bad people, atheist and religious.  Atheists, in general, don’t go around bashing religious people for simply being religious.  We criticize religion and the beliefs themselves, but since when are those beyond criticism?  We disagree with and criticize their beliefs, but we don’t bash the people.  Now, this is not to say we don’t criticize religious people, but it is for their actions.  When actions that deserve criticism are religiously based or religiously justified, then are we not to bring that up?  A bigot is a bigot, people should expect to be criticized for damaging, dangerous, and disgusting public actions justified religiously.  Those are individual people, not all the religious.  Comfort doesn’t make the same distinction when talking about atheists.  He can’t get by his bigotry.

Ray Comfort, the Angry Bigot

Comfort can’t help himself, though.  He can’t even get through the title without insulting atheists, or skeptics, terms he clearly doesn’t understand as he uses them interchangeably.  We are angry.  We don’t have legitimate concerns or criticisms and legitimate reasons not to believe.  No, we’re angry!  The way Comfort writes, you’d think you can pick an atheist off the street by his menacing expression.  Anyone not burdened by bigoted ideology can see that is ridiculous.  Just like many other minority groups that experience prejudice, we’re really just like anyone else.   I know I’m a pretty nice guy.  I defy you to find a single one of my many religious friends who would call me “angry.”

In a way he is right though, we are angry about something.  We are angry about bigots being able to get away with such disgusting screeds against us without any societal repercussions, and instead being congratulated in American society.  Yet, if we simply say the most passive expression of “I am atheist,” without any sort of aggression, we are immediately subject to the worst of societal repercussions.  Do we not have the right to be angry when we are belittled and attacked simply for existing?

Comfort, the Scientist

There’s also the whole thing where he tries to use science to disprove atheism, although he has no scientific credentials and even religious scientists would find his arguments laughable.  Remember, this is the guy who claimed bananas are proof of God’s creation because he made it fit perfectly in our hands.

Let’s ignore that he has no understanding of how to properly interpret scientific evidence, and even makes up evidence off the top of his head and claims it to be scientific.  All of this is dwarfed by the fact that he has no concept of how evidence and the burden of proof works.  He attempts to disprove atheism, but atheism posits no claim that can be disproved.  He loses before he even starts.  Atheism is the default position.  If one was born in a world where everyone had forgotten religion, no one would have to say “there is no god.”  The idea of a god would not come up unless people brought it to you, as parents do during childhood.

Comfort is the one making a claim, that there is a god who created everything.  He is the one who must prove his point through evidence.  He can’t do that, so instead he tries to disprove something that asserts no claim that can be disproved.  His logic fails from the very first premise.  Since that is impossible, he instead reverts to atheist-bashing.  He has nothing of substance to say, so he bashes us.  Yet we are the immoral, dangerous ones?  Give me a break.

I, for one, reserve my right to be an angry atheist/skeptic, as long as he and other religious bigots continue to attack and insult us.