A Response to Tracy Moore

Recently an article written by Tracy Moore was brought to my attention.  The article is titled “Godless Parents are Doing a Better Job” ( one shouldn’t be surprised at the conclusions in the article considering it comes from a site named Jezebel.com).  The article starts off poorly and goes downhill form there.  The bias of the author is made clear in the very first sentence; “Hate to break it to you, Bible thumpers”.  The writer’s credibility is dismissed when she starts off her article using a derogatory term to insult Christians.  She defines Christians as people who use their Bibles to thump other people.  I know for certain that I have never once in my life thumped someone with my Bible.

The author then states the overall premise and conclusion of the article that children raised by parents who do not profess a belief in God do just as well and possibly even better than those raised by parents who are believers.  The criterion for such an assessment? “Overall, not believing in God seems to make people and their offspring more tolerant. Less racist. Less sexist. Enviro-friendly.” Wow! First, lets take a look at that claim and the inherent problems.  Such measurements are incredibly subjective.  So what is the definition of ‘more tolerant’ or less sexist’? The writer does not provide us with any information to help us understand those conclusions.  She simply makes the assertion and then points to an op-ed written by sociologist Phil Zuckerman. Phil Zuckerman is an agnostic who wrote the book, “Society Without God.”  To make matters worse, the op-ed by Mr. Zuckerman grossly misinterprets the material of Vern Bengtson, whose study he references quite extensively.  For more information on this read about Vern Bengtson’s study regarding Families and Faith.

So how does the author, Tracy Moore, determine that children raised by parents who are not believers are more tolerant? Far too often tolerance is measured either by standing up for nothing or by “do you agree with me?”  If I stand for nothing I can be viewed as someone who is tolerant when in reality I am simply someone who wants to remain disengaged.  On the other hand, to many in the progressive movement of today one is often considered intolerant if they believe differently than the progressives do, especially regarding the litmus test of social issues such as abortion, homosexuality, etc.

What exactly does the author mean by less sexist? Does she mean if someone has a different view of the differences between men and women than she does they are sexist? Are children of Christian parents less ‘enviro-friendly’ because they may doubt the claims of global warming advocates.  A primary tenant of Christian teaching is good stewardship, including the world in which we live.

After reading the assertion that children of parents who are not believers are more tolerant, it is incredibly ironic to read the author’s tirade against the religious people of the small town she grew up in. “I would like to take this time to say directly to the small town I grew up in and its endless youth groups and Bible studies and Baptist churches and even grosser fundamentalist Church of Christ churches, and all the prayers before games, and Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the fear-mongering attitudes and pervy youth group leaders and gross, self-righteous, hypocritical, sexist, homophobic, racist, shallow, anti-intellectual, anti-questioning, anti-books, anti-music, anti-art, utter crass consumerism in place of actual Christian-ness: FACE. Big, stupid FACE in your FACE.” Does that sound like the voice of tolerance? She later writes, “(I almost exclusively grew up with Baptists and Church of Christ nutjobs)”.  Tolerant? She refers to God as the “Big Kahuna”.  I suppose another conclusion would be that these children are more respectful.

Tracy Moore makes it a point to highlight Phil Zuckerman’s assertion that Vern Bengtson says that non-religious families possess ethical values and morals. Zuckerman even writes in his op-ed, “Many nonreligious parents were more coherent and passionate about their ethical principles than some of the ‘religious’ parents in our study,” Bengston told me. He told you? Just like that? Two important things missing are 1) Many of the families Bengtson talks about are families that at a particular time are not associated with a specific church or religious organization.  He makes it clear that in many of these cases the people still consider themselves believers. 2) Bengtson points out that many of these families come back to their religious associations.  Bengtson’s study is actually about the transmission of faith rather than families without faith.

In addition it is always interesting to hear unbelievers refer to morals.  How do we determine what is right or wrong without a standard? You know someone is six feet tall because measure them against a standard composed of feet and inches.Where did the standard come from? Standards are absolute. God is absolute.  Only something absolute can produce something absolute. Subjective cannot produce objective.

As you read this article it becomes clear the author has an axe to grind against Christianity and she found a sociologist who held similar views to support her vitriolic hatred of Christianity and our God.  God loves Tracy Moore and died for her salvation.  He can save her.  The conclusions and assertions in this article are not supported by fact or data.  What this article is however, is one more example of the growing hatred of Christianity (and Christ) in our society today that will ultimately result in the persecution of the saints.  The good news is that God will be with us, even unto the end. Are you ready?

 

 

 

Leave a Comment