Militant atheist Sam Harris has been making quite a stir lately with his best-selling polemics against religion and his in-your-face public appearances:
… [while] debating a former priest before a packed auditorium… he condemns the God of the Old Testament for a host of sins, including support for slavery. He drop-kicks the New Testament, likening the story of Jesus to a fairy tale. He savages the Koran, calling it “a manifesto for religious divisiveness…” [Link]
He goes beyond the usual attacks on fundamentalists to attack moderates for being “enablers” and apologists for more extreme actions:
Religious moderates, Harris says in his patient and imperturbable style, have immunized religion from rational discussion by nurturing the idea that faith is so personal and private that it is beyond criticism, even when horrific crimes are committed in its name. [Link]
<
p>He sees all religion as fundamentally dangerous, especially in the post 9/11 world:
… he demonstrates the behavior he believes atheists should adopt when talking with Christians. “Nonbelievers like myself stand beside you,” he writes, addressing his imaginary opponent, “dumbstruck by the Muslim hordes who chant death to whole nations of the living. But we stand dumbstruck by you as well – by your denial of tangible reality, by the suffering you create in service to your religious myths, and by your attachment to an imaginary God…” [Link]The worst part, Harris says, is this: Because Christians and Jews cling to their “delusions,” they are in no position to criticize Muslims for theirs. And, as he italicizes it in his new book for maximum effect, ” most Muslims are utterly deranged by their religious faith. ” [Italics his] [Link]
<
p>Despite his deep and abiding enmity to all religions, he finds one acceptable:
He endorses Jainism, a religion-philosophy from India that finds God in the unchanging traits of the human soul. But everyone who organizes his or her life around an ancient text that purports to convey the words and sentiments of God — Harris would like you to surrender your prayers, history and traditions. You are welcome to check out Jainism, but Harris recommends that you accept his conclusion, which is that we live in a universe without God. Deal with it. [Link]
<
p>Somehow I don’t think that the Jains are going to get an influx of converts. And that’s OK with him:
It is, of course, taboo to criticize a person’s religious beliefs. The problem, however, is that much of what people believe in the name of religion is intrinsically divisive, unreasonable, and incompatible with genuine morality. The truth is that the only rational basis for morality is a concern for the happiness and suffering of other conscious beings. [Link]How exactly the faithful will transition to a godless, Good Book-less cosmology is not exactly clear. Harris isn’t sure it will ever happen. But he is heartened by countries such as Sweden, where he claims 80 percent of the populace do not believe in God. [Link]
My very favorite part of this story? The fact that his (un)faith came to him in a vision of secular humanism:
At age 19, he and a college friend tried MDMA, better known as ecstasy, and the experience altered his view of the role that love could play in the world. (“I realized that it was possible to be a human being who wished others well all the time, reflexively.”) He dropped out of Stanford, where he was an English major, in his sophomore year and started to study Buddhism and meditation. He flew around the country and around the world, to places such as India and Nepal, often for silent retreats that went on for months. [Link]
I’m curious as to why Buddhism doesn’t pass muster with him any more. Does he not consider it a religion at all, or does he have a beef with it to?
More on Jainism: Wikipedia, BBC
Update 1: Sam Harris explains why he thinks religion is bad [long clip]:
For example, Einstein believed in exactly this kind of God – a God who reflects the deep mysteries of the universe, and its underlying harmony and beauty, and inspires reverence and humility.
einstein was a pantheist who gave a nod to spinoza’s god. this is different than the rationalistic proofs discussed above which deal with a personal agent god.
Are equating a nut job (as you say) to Harris? Common now thats just GOP tactics in fighting the debate!
Jai Singh (96)
The first part of your argument is circular. So I can’t ‘understand’ god by definition so let me believe it…
My own two paise (sorry if this has already been repeated)…I think militant atheists get a bad rap simply because they point out inconsistencies in everything else withouth truly having naything positive to offer in the place of what they are trying to prove is untrue. Also in my experience, a good atheist tries not to be too derogatory towards religion so that they dont end up being roo religious about atheism and this lets to a promotion of religion.
Razib, I was responding to Sakshi’s statement:
Razib:
But doesn’t atheism fall into the same category? Atheism is defined as the “doctrine or belief that there is no God”. That seems as unfounded a belief as the one that there is a God. There are three possibilities that can be personally known:
Of these three, only the last one can be postulated without involving a personal faith (experience, call it what you will). And, I am not disputing that there might be a real personal experience…just that it can’t be explained in words to somebody else.
Amartya Sen knows merely to read Sanskrit and is not a Sanskrit scholar or a scholar of Indian philosophies. Sen is simply proceeding from a colonial interpretation of Indian history and philosophy. Amazing that Carvaka is made a person simply on the basis of critiques of that school of thought. How have we concluded that people actually followed lived in hermetically sealed ‘schools of thought’? Simply because we assume people in the distant past lived just like we do today. Rather than read out of a superficial anthology of lectures check out C. Ram-Prasad’s Knowledge and Liberation in Classical Indian Thought, Library of Philosophy and Religion,. BTW in Jainism the attainment of Kevalagnana marks enlightenment. Kanada who propounded atomism (the existence of paramanu or indivisible constituents of matter) in 600 BCE may have been Jainic. Jaina philosophy is also the origin of the earliest ideas of infinity – the four types of infinity – and the by now popular Meru Prasthara (otherwise known as Pascal’s triangle) and the Hemacandra progression (aka Fibonacci Series). Why did Jaina philosophy explore these directions? That’s an interesting question.
1. That there is a God. 2. That there is no God. 3. That I don’t know.
Of these three, only the last one can be postulated without involving a personal faith (experience, call it what you will).
1) please read my comments in the thread 2) and pray tell you tell catholic thomists (e.g., the majority tradition in the catholic faith) that personal faith is necessary for god belief 3) you don’t get to define god, you aren’t god. a big problem with these debates is that
a) people have their own conception of god b) and so they have their own conception of atheism
but there are 333 million^333 million conceptions of god. on some conceptions of god i am an agnostic. on some i am an atheist.
christ.
Jesus
SUPERSTAR!
“Atheists are obsessed with God, as you may have noticed.” -Salman Rushdie
“Atheists are obsessed with God, as you may have noticed.” -Salman Rushdie
well, we aren’t obsessed with astrology. wonder why….
Well some theists too aren’t obsessed with astrology, and in fact will tell you that rationality leads to theism.
Well some theists too aren’t obsessed with astrology, and in fact will tell you that rationality leads to theism.
yes, i know this. the catholic church has long had a campaign against this. my point, which you missed, is that delusions which people don’t try to impose on the rest of us are irrelevant. the reason atheists are obsessed with god is that we spend [at least in the USA] most of our life dealing with people who treat us like we’re aliens because we don’t believe in god, who claim we are amoral because we don’t believe in god, who believe god must be the font of public policy, etc. etc. etc. i think some of the snide insinuations that we are “obsessed” with god are really egregious in their lack of perspective since we wouldn’t care about god if he wasn’t used as the justification for a range of abhorrent acts. this is not to say that good is not done in god’s name as well, the key is that god can never be inconsequential to those of us who do not believe in god as we are fewer than 5% of the human race and decisions made due to the will of this non-existent entity effect our lives.
If I were you, I won’t believe them.
Attempted suicide is no longer a crime. The supreme court passed a judgement to that effect sometime in the late 90s i think.
razib
.
try being an athiest in India when literally everybody around you is obsessed with religion.
I’ve made the analogy previously on SM that humans trying to understand God in His/Its entirety is like an amoeba trying to understand the mind of Einstein — only in this case, the intellectual and cognitive difference is extrapolated to infinity.
With due respect Jai, the above argument is precisely the reason I first turned away from religion. Basically you are suggesting that our mind is too puny to understand God. I am not sure how I can believe in something I dont understand because my puny mind cannot comprehend.
Cereal Killer,
No, that’s not quite what I was saying. Humans cannot understand God comprehensively/exhaustively; up to a certain point, yes, partly by intellectual reasoning and partly as a result of one’s own spiritual awareness, but beyond that there’s an entire magnitude of God’s qualities which we cannot describe in their entirety.
The point is that there are some things we only realise by direct personal experience, not solely by trying to “figure it out”. If I may draw an analogy, a person who genuinely falls in love with someone else will not necessarily have been able to predict the true nature of the experience beforehand, and beyond a certain point it’ll be difficult for them to describe the experience to a third-party who’s never experienced “true love” themselves. Language has its limitations, and there is also the issue of a lack of common reference points between the two individuals.
So the same principle applies here.
AlMfD,
Coincidentally, I was writing my response to Cereal Killer while you posted your own message, so hopefully that should have answered your question 🙂
Aha, but that’s the point. Your heart and soul will comprehend it, but (again speaking generally, I’m not implying this is an issue with you personally) you will need to control your ego sufficiently to become aware of it. Your mind will follow, once the “knots have been untangled”. Sikhism has certain concepts regarding emotional & mental self-discipline (controlling what the faith terms the inner “5 Thieves”, along with adopting an upright and benevolent mindset in your heart & mind towards one’s fellow humans in general) which facilitate this. There is also a major difference between merely “believing” in something, based pretty much on second-hand knowledge and guesswork/assumptions, and actually being aware of it.
This is actually one of the reasons why Sikh scriptures are set to music; because reading the words alone won’t necessarily be sufficient to really understand the meaning behind them — the emotional impact of the music conveys the message and “speaks to the heart”. And one doesn’t need to be a Sikh (or a believer in any formal religion) to benefit from this and the matters mentioned in the previous paragraph. This is the whole point.
I should mention that I’m only mentioning Sikhism to place my own views into their proper context for the benefit of other readers here; Sikhism is not a proselytising faith so I’m not “grandstanding”, and I actually feel uncomfortable about having to mention it this much, even though it’s necessary within the context of this discussion. However, I should also mention that my own views were reached independently over many years and were not a matter of blindly following/believing whatever the faith may teach. It’s still a learning process 😉
In any case — believe, or do not believe, it’s entirely up to you. Despite what some other organised religions may say, disbelief is not a mortal crime and nobody will not be “punished” for it by God. God isn’t some kind of tyrant who vindictively punishes people for not believing in him (people can’t be forced into spirituality !).
Mr Kobayashi:
I agree. The point I was trying make in my post was, that belief in God has nothing to do with logic. People do not sit and weigh the evidence and decide there is a God. They believe in God because:
a) There is something called religious ecstasy, and people who have known it say it is better than LSD. Just kidding. But see Jai Singh’s comments (#117, #118) to see what I am talking about. I think #118 really brings out the real reason why quite a few people believe in God(or are tempted to believe). I think people who argue rationally for their belief in God, do so only because they feel that is what would convince rationalists, or because they are uncomfortable with being irrational/being seen as irrational. But again Buddhists and Jains also experience spiritual peace in their religion, even though they are essentially atheists. That is definitely an argument against the idea that religious joy has anything to do with God. So is LSD, btw 😉 .
b) they feel uncomfortable in a world where there is no God. They are uncomfortable with a universe where anything they do ulitmately makes no difference. And this cannot be easily dismissed. Much of 19th and 20th century European philosophy, from Schopenhauer to Sartre and Camus is essntially a reaction to this feeling.
c) they think there is no God means there are no morals, and the only alternative is mindless hedonism or moral nihilism. If you talk to religious christians and muslims, they always connect the idea of atheism to sexual debauchery and amorality. I know there are answers to this question in humanist ethics. But atheists should bring out and emphasize these answers, so that people know what the alternatives to religion are.
Rahul:
The point is not of reconciling your beliefs with your respect for rational thought. I feel a belief in God should follow logically from your thought, and if it is not, then you are essentially being intellectually dishonest by believing.
I am totally with you on this. Thanks for the quote by Weinberg.
Well that’s where they’re wrong, Sakshi. Some of the most mindful hedonists I know are atheists.
Relax people. Seemed like an amusing quotation to share.
I am a PE teacher (among other things) in Richmond, VA. My high school is roughly 96% black children, about 1/2 from public housing. It’s not exactly the bible belt but many of my kids are at poverty level and have been raised in some sort of Baptist faith in which the pastor appears to knows everything. I’ve had a few interesting experiences in the past month with Xtians that reinforce my agreement with Razib, comment #112. In study hall my kids were getting so loud that I offhandedly said, ‘God, you guys are so loud, my ears are bleeding! Take the noise down.’ A girl in the back started yelling angily, ‘You shouldn’t take the lords name in vein. You need to shut up! I hate teachers like you!’ At first I had no idea what she was talking about, but then I said, ‘Which lord? Lord Shiva, Jehovah or Hay-soos? I don’t believe in God.’ The class erupted, kids shouting at each other to ‘stop bein’ ignant’ or at me, telling me to shut up, that I’m going to hell, etc. and finally, another girl spoke up and said ‘Coach has an opinion. You don’t have to agree with her.Ya’ll act like you never hearda opinions before.’ I’ll never forget the confusion on some of their faces. After everyone had calmed down, a boy asked me ‘Well, what do you believe in?’ My reply? Education.
Mindful hedonism 😀 . Mr Kobayashi, that is a religion you just might convert me to.
This is incredibly unfair.
My puzzlement towards atheists is grounded in this very attitude. Yes, one can frame the question of god in such a way as to make anyone who would affirm look like a fool. But there are many conceptions of diety that aren’t so easily refuted. You cannot definitley prove that no higher entity exists, and you cannot prove that one does. Some of us believe, for whatever reason, and some of us don’t. No one knows, not even the atheist. It comes down to faith. Not knowledge. Neither side deserves to be likened to children.
Now, maybe not motherships, but I’d think atheists would be more prone to belief in aliens than god-lovers — no?
I don’t agree with the line of reasoning that claims humans can never know the mind of God, that it’s a question of faith, etc. Part of such assertions may be true, but then we should just call not-knowing by its proper name, i.e., superstition or science. God is omnipresent, and is the Creator of everything that was, is and ever shall be. How do we know this? Because the good books tell us so. And what are these good books? They are the word of God. Two thousand years of scholarship have done nothing to resolve this circular, self-reflexive aspect of God and religion.
As for the God experience, why can’t it just go by the name of the experience it entails? Ecstacy, peace, bliss, compassion, whatever. We would have these experiences anyway, with or without God. It also doesn’t seem right to say things like Sikhs set things to music for such and such reason, and sufis dance and hindus chant. All of these things are practiced all over the world for pretty much the same reason with pretty much the same results. Naturally some things predominate in some cultures more than in others.
The sad thing about religion – and this started with christianity – are the truth claims it makes. The Asian “religions” were a mixture of philosophy, experience, ethics and tradition. No-one ever insisted on beliefs being true. This has been changing slowly but surely and now you come across such sad phenomenon as Hindus scrambling around to prove the existence of Rama and what not rather than simply drawing inspiration from the stories.
LOL.. well said
We can also call it “humility”. And “honesty” too.
Acknowledging that there are things beyond our understanding is stating a fact and an admittance of the limits of human comprehension. However, if someone attempts to “fill in the blanks” by pure speculation and guesswork, then that is superstition, at least if the person concerned is claiming veracity for their assertions.
As far as I know, nobody on this entire thread has said that the above should be believed because “the good books tell us so”. Hell, I even went further in post #96 and gave a quote by Guru Nanak explicitly warning against basing one’s religious beliefs purely on what a “holy book” may say, ie:
“The pages are the prison, and the writings are the bars on the windows”.
That’s pure speculation. It’s an assertion which is impossible to test.
It’s stating a fact. Sikh scriptures are set to music — specific raags, in fact — because they are designed to speak directly to the heart. As we all know, music is often the best way to convey matters to human beings, because of the power of the music and the emotional impact involved. Within Sikhism, the songs are specifically designed to accurately convey both the religious message and the “personality” of God, along with having a general therapeutic effect on the listener.
I’m not sure which commenter on this thread has said the above. I don’t recall anybody mentioning dancing Sufis or chanting Hindus.
Also wrong. All 10 of the Sikh Gurus insisted that their teachings were true and based on direct spiritual experience of God. They did not, however, force these beliefs on anyone else or expect anybody to blindly take their word for it.
Just to clarify the above, the Sikh scriptures in their entirety were deliberately set to music by the Sikh Gurus themselves, with the final version of the writings and the associated raags collated by Guru Gobind Singh and termed the Guru Granth Sahib.
But the above fact is also true of gospel, choral music, hindu chants, buddhist chants, and rock and roll. They all do things for the soul, including Britney Spears. That was the only point I was trying to make. This includes the “truths” you are ascribing to the Sikh gurus. My grandmother told me some of the same things as the Sikh gurus said, and these are not beliefs but rather results of contemplation and experience. A belief on the other hand is a claim such as “There is a God in heaven”, “such and such is his only son or prophet”, etc. No such claims are made by Sikhism unless you ascribe the same meaning of God to the Sikh gurus as the JC religions ascribe to God. That’s a whole other argument and not worth pursuing.
Through the ages human beings realized the enormous significance of certain events in a human life – birth, death, graduation, marriage, harvests, and these have been celebrated, ritualized, ceremonialized and solemnized in many differnt ways. This has nothing to do with a “belief” but is based on common human experience. Through the ages, human beings also realized the significance of behaving in certain ways that would promote social well-being and these happened to be either codified or otherwise imposed through social influence. This too has nothing to do with a belief system, but is simply a practical matter. Thus it is ridiculous to make claims that Hindus believe that you must cremate, and muslims believe you must bury, and hindus must wear red saris, or whatever the heck else has now been set in stone. I have been reading your posts off and on for a few months and I see nothing that can be called a belief in the JC sense of the religious term. Of course it has now become a global trend to make truth claims about one’s beliefs and in fact a belief system seems to be the only way people can relate to different traditions. It is this aspect of religion that I am challenging. No question that it is a reality in this day and age, but does it make sense?
And that obsession sometimes seems to impair their sense of humor, as you also may have noticed.
Re #122
Great story, great response at the end.
Why o why, when we were having such a wonderful discussion on spirituality, athiesm and the realm of understanding of the human mind and soul, not to mention mindful hedonism, would you bring up the good books. I mean I can understand when you talk of the great unknown, the omnipotent being. I don’t share your belief but I respect you for that. But to talk of the good books, which are only 2,000 years old, when Hinduism itself is twice as old, is abominable. They talk of slavery, casteism, vegetarianism, animal slaughter, sati, vaastu and what not? Surely God doesn’t approve???
As you say some of the things in the books overlap with what your grandmom said out of experience. Isn’t it entirely possible that the books were written out of the experiences of a few sagely men who decided that it was time to bring a few rules into the lives of the barbarians. And knowing that the words would be much well recieved from say an omni-potent being than the wise people, they just attributed the books to the Gods. A small white lie to serve a greater purpose, of bringing a kind of social order in the lives of the people.
Really? I thought 122 was childish, condescending, and rude — emblematic of evrything that bugs me about the proselytizing atheist. At the most fundamental level, when teaching inner city kids, you’ve got to respect where they’re coming from.
Coming to think of it, I cannot disprove that the tooth fairy exists either.
yes. you can. the concept is admittedly made up. inherently false.
And god is not? You mean some god did actually come down from upstairs and told us humans that he exists and how he should be worshipped?
thats the belief, yes.
Okay I admit equating Harris to one of natures greatest errors may seem a bit harsh. When it comes to the GOP tactics I’m a bit lost. The urban dictionary mentioned a grand ole paedophile. Now that’s interesting, I’ve never been called a paedophile before let alone a ‘Grand Ole Paedophile’ but I assume you meant a Republican (see what you did, you made me use a dirty word).
Look IÂ’m not even from America. I read the article by Segal and thought it was hilarious. I think itÂ’s very noble of you to defend the precious honour of Mr. Harris but I donÂ’t think that his statements about Jainism are something to cheer about simply because heÂ’s the one making the statements.
” most Muslims are utterly deranged by their religious faith. “ Wow heÂ’s criticising Muslims. Now thatÂ’s new donÂ’t you think! I mean I already thought it was bit silent around the Muslim debate since 9/11. It must definitely be a real treat to read about all these “new” perspectives.
“We have to start seeing religion for what it is,” he says, “a failed science, a failed description of the world, a holdover of discourse by our ancestors, who had no basis to demand good evidence and good argument.” That, and buy his book!
IÂ’m sort of guessing that you were offended by my post. My apologies for that I didnÂ’t write my post in a serious spirit. You were right when you said I didnÂ’t contribute to the debate but can you really take this man serious?
Sigh I think I just acted like a perfect little troll, mind me, or to quote our beloved Harris “The maniac comes out a bit when I get behind the keyboard.”
What I was trying to say was that atheism is not simply a belief. It is a reasoned conclusion that the data provided by the religions does not meet the rigorous standards required to support such a strong assertion.
Belief in God has its uses(I made some arguments in #119), and to many people it is essential to a meaningful existence. But a thing is not true because it is useful.
What data? There’s no set of facts and premises that we all can agree to start from. I love geometric proofs and logic games were my favorite section of the LSAT — sadly, what resonates with one’s soul is not always so easily structured.
I don’t buy into much of religious teachings but I do believe in a higher entity. And I’m not concerned with the specifics. How can you disprove that? Maybe you can tell me that my conception is not meaningful but to that I say “ppbhhhtttttttttttttttt.”
The most intelligent men are rarely atheists. The greatest philosophers, the greatest scientists the greatest spiritualists tend towards pantheism.
Atheists are smart enough to see that that the christian trinity, the muslim allah, the numerous mythological characters hindus worship as gods etc, are all human concoctions. And they congratulate themselves on their wisdom in recognizing this low grade anthropomorphism. But how smart do you have to be to realize that?
The atheists arent intelligent enough to realize that their faith that inanimate matter-energy is the primeval, eternal reality, is just plain idiotic.
BTW, the title of this thread is misleading. Sam Harris, like Einstein and many other western intellectuals, appears to be partial to Buddhism (without its “religious” baggage). If Sam thinks that the Buddha was an atheist materialist, he hasnt understood him at all. What does he think the goal of buddhist endeavour, the “Other Shore”, represents? Non-existence??
We were missing you 🙂 .
No problem with that. There will always be such books. Except that the “good books” are the word of God, and the word of God is the Truth, the only Truth, and not obeying God’s truth has been and still is punishable by death, and influences foreign policy, domestic policy, not to mention the havoc it wreaks on many minds. Granny’s and other sagely teachings can be put to good use and discarded if they are no longer of any use. Sure some religions are older, but before 2000 years nobody spoke of the “truth”. It is a different matter entirely that they may have forced you to do things out of generic abuse of power. All of a sudden God’s word became the truth and there was no arguing with that. Even the comments on this thread reflect the so-called personal nature of religion and God, all the while not knowing who or what God is. I can’t think of any other thing in life where people have no clue what they’re talking about but make allowances for its existence anyway.
But that is the mother of all religious teachings! Most people believe in a higher entity only because this is what we hear from early childhood. It doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
espressa, people like you are irrelevant to atheists like me. you don’t seem intent on forcing your beliefs on other people, nor generating social policy derived from them. i think your beliefs are probably silly and sentimental, but i have similar beliefs on a range of topics myself, so i don’t particularly care. but, the reality is that we live in a world where people use deadly force in the name of this “god” entity. of you read harris & dawkins work you see that this is their primary focus, no matter their dismissals of religous moderates and spiritualists, the fundamentalists who claim to act in god’s name are the key targets. it is your prerogative not to believe in the specifics of god and focus on the spirituality, but social policy is constructed by those who do have an interest in specifics.
And that obsession sometimes seems to impair their sense of humor, as you also may have noticed.
atheists are the most disliked group in the united states (50% unfav. vs. 25% for muslims). hahaha, we should laugh a hearty laugh about it all and not take ourselves so seriously when we are more detested by religious conservatives than even homosexuals.
Really? I thought 122 was childish, condescending, and rude — emblematic of evrything that bugs me about the proselytizing atheist. At the most fundamental level, when teaching inner city kids, you’ve got to respect where they’re coming from.
and this, i certainly disagree with. why should one respect superstitious beliefs? christian fundamentalists assert that homosexuality is an abomination against nature, should we respect where they come from? muslim fundamentalists believe that apostates should be killed, should we respect where they come from? no, we discriminate based on the nature of the beliefs. some of the beliefs of students are worthy of respect and consideration, and some are not. you obviously would draw the line at a different place than the teacher above, but you would draw the line somewhere i suspect as well.
macacaroach:
Well yes, that has been my interpretation too. Or maybe you can say that Buddha did not say anything further about the other shore except that it is worth visiting (when he answered where do we go after we attain nirvana with: “where does the flame go after it is extinguished”). I shall be glad to hear an alternate pov.
I think it’s funny when people tell me the fundamental levels of teaching inner city kids. (See post # 133) Now who’s condescending? You can still, to a certain extent, be yourself, when you’re a teacher. Trying to be someone you’re not, seems to me, to show lack of respect for both the student and yourself. That’s something kids sense right away-they’re phony radar is fine tuned. Some of my fourteen-year-old girls have babies at home. I don’t tell them that they’re wrong for having made the choices that they made, I simply present them with as many options as are available to them. It is illegal for me to even mention abortion as an option while ‘on the clock’ in case I offend someone. That’s why, in VA, we have those abstinence only policies that work so well… However, when a child tells me she is pregnant I certainly don’t have a problem with directing her to the nearest Planned Parenthood who will tell her all all the options. As Coach, my kids tell me sometimes before they tell a parent because they know I will treat them as if they were my child, not the way their parent/pastor treats them. I have even driven them there myself. I guess I’m being pushy by asking them if they need a ride? Maybe it wouldn’t respect where they are coming from- but as we all know, where you come from and where you plan on going can be divergent places.
Coach Diesel, you rock.
And for those of you who think your god is right, I have just one word for you: Even Stephen. No, two. Two words.
That’s hilarious. “Maybe the Jew is right.” :-D.