Time: Sunday School for Atheists

Photo of Kristen Fyfe.
By Kristen Fyfe | November 26, 2007 - 21:55 ET

Will Time magazine come and cover MY Sunday school class? You know, the one where I teach my kids that their Christian faith is under attack on a weekly, if not daily, basis from the mainstream media?

I think its a valid question because Time just did a lovely send-up to a Sunday School for ..... atheists. Yep. Seems the atheists, or rather humanists, in Palo Alto, California think believers have something going on with the whole Sunday School thing.

Time's reporter Jeninne Lee-St. John promotes the atheist program, atheist summer camps and a new Carl Sagan-named Humanist public charter school in her Nov. 21 story. The fact that the piece was put up on Time.com on the eve before Thanksgiving, when millions of Americans gathered to give thanks to God, is delectable irony.

The bias started in the first paragraph:

"On Sunday mornings, most parents who don't believe in the Christian God, or any god at all, are probably making brunch or cheering at their kids' soccer game, or running errands or, with luck, sleeping in. Without religion, there's no need for church, right?"

Talk about painting going to church as something - burdensome. But also beneficial: "...some nonbelievers are beginning to think they might need something for their children." Not to mention that most church-going folks are also making brunch, going to their kids' sports events, running errands and sometimes sleeping in.

Lee-St. John wrote that atheists, especially those with kids, find value in the Sunday School model where church groups "help teach ... kids values." She then introduced the Humanist Community Center of Palo Alto, California as a place where atheists are taking their children to learn "from an early age how to respond to the God-fearing majority in the U.S." Lee-St. John consistently uses the word "nonbelievers" to describe the atheists. Her choice of "God-fearing" to describe believers seems loaded.

The story calls the program in Palo Alto "pioneering" and describes it as a "place to reinforce the morals and values" atheist parents want their children to have. Between this, the summer camps and charter school which has an enrollment of only 55 students, it seems like Time used a lot of ink for a handful of sparsely attended programs, schools and camps. But it's free publicity for atheism, which has received a lot of positive coverage from the mainstream media this year. (Blasphemy Challenge and Christopher Hitchens' review of Mother Theresa's book come to mind.)

Cheerleading for atheism continued throughout the piece:

Kneisley, 26, a graduate student at the University of Missouri, says she realized [her son] Damian needed to learn about secularism after a neighbor showed him the Bible. "Damian was quite certain this guy was right and was telling him this amazing truth that I had never shared," says Kneisley. In most ways a traditional sleep-away camp--her son loved canoeing--Camp Quest also taught Damian critical thinking, world religions and tales of famous freethinkers (an umbrella term for atheists, agnostics and other rationalists) like the black abolitionist Frederick Douglass."

The implication is that Christians kids aren't taught to think critically and don't learn about world religions or Frederick Douglass. By the way, when did atheists become "rationalists?" Atheism is explicitly irrational. The statement that God does not exist cannot be proven, it can only be asserted by faith; it's logically impossible to prove a negative.

Lee-St. John described the Palo Alto program as one that "uses music, art and discussion to encourage personal expression, intellectual curiosity and collaboration." She continued, "One Sunday this fall found a dozen children up to age 6 and several parents playing percussion instruments and singing empowering anthems like I'm Unique and Unrepeatable, set to the tune of Ten Little Indians, instead of traditional Sunday school songs like Jesus Loves Me. She said there were a "dozen children up to age 6" in this class.

What other class with only 12 kids in it gets featured in TIME magazine?

While the little ones were singing about their uniqueness, reports Lee-St. John, the "older kids engaged in a Socratic conversation with (the teacher) about the role persuasion plays in decision making. He tried to get them to see that people who are coerced into renouncing their beliefs might not actually change their minds but could be acting out of self-preservation - an important lesson for young atheists who may feel pressure to say they believe in God."

Which brings me back to my first question. I've got 20 7th graders in my Sunday school class. I wonder if Lee-St. John will come and document my efforts to get my students fired up for God in a media culture that does everything in its power to undermine those efforts and their still-forming faith?

Lee-St. John concluded her piece with the following paragraph:

"Atheist parents appreciate this nurturing environment. That's why Kitty, a nonbeliever who didn't want her last name used to protect her kids' privacy, brings them to Bishop's class each week. After Jonathan, 13, and Hana, 11, were born, Kitty says she felt socially isolated and even tried taking them to church. But they're all much more comfortable having rational discussions at the Humanist center. ‘I'm a person that doesn't believe in myths,' Hana says. ‘I'd rather stick to the evidence.'"

Implication: believing in God equates to irrationality and myth-believing.

 

 

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

God bless em:)

absolutely all people need religion - God designed us that way

- so we even have atheism, agnosticism, global warming, krishna's at the airport, hollywood, grand theft auto video games - it's absolutely gotta be SOMETHING:)

The fool hath said in his heart

The fool hath said in his heart there is no God. They are corrupt. Their works are abominable.

The phobia which atheists afflict their children with does eternal damage. That Bible verse was part of my Confirmation study years ago and to this day the Holy Spirit will bring verses long ago ingrained in me at the appropriate time for guidance and response.

It is such a shame that children will never be exposed to actually learn of this Spiritual relationship. There is not a day the Holy Spirit is not leading me, directing me, comforting me and speaking to me. I think of it as "cheating" as God makes everything so easy. I like most people think I know "best", and I have argued many times but obeyed and every time God has proven right in knowing a decision I thought sound had something coming up which would have been a disaster for me.

All of these people though know God is just like all of know God is in us speaking daily. It reminds me of a Chinese peasant who a missionary told about Jesus the Christ..........he paused for a moment upon hearing about Him and then said, "Oh that is His Name. I always knew He was there inside me, but I did not know His Name".

The beginning of Wisdom is the fear of the Lord...........The fear of the Lord is to hate evil. Proverbs.

 

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

More role models for us all

This is just a continuation of the MSM and Liberal campaign to kill civilized life as we know it and replace it with their own perverted version.

Queer Marriage; Athiesm Sunday School; In-state tuition for illegals; Banning Boy Scouts; Removal of Christmas, Easter from school vocabularies; Declaring all white people as racists; and the list goes on.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

"Kneisley, 26, a graduate

"Kneisley, 26, a graduate student at the University of Missouri, says she realized [her son] Damian needed to learn about secularism after a neighbor showed him the Bible." 

You can't make this stuff up!

Nortonalec

Funny. Sad.

"Damian was quite certain this guy was right and was telling him this amazing truth that I had never shared," says Kneisley...

So she shut that thought completely out of his head and enrolled him in 'humanistic' classes at Camp Quest and left him totally baffled at all the disconnected information they threw at him.

I still think athiests are just juvenile, immature brats rebelling against their parents for having to (ugh) go to church on Sunday and for having to give thanks to God AND for teaching them to listen to their conscience to guide them.  I'm the boss of my life, say athiests.

Scout F; From a juvenile brat

I am technically an atheist but claim the title of agnostic since I am not an active atheist in that I'm not looking to convert anyone or willing to throw a tantrum and tell people how wrong they are for making decisions about themselves and their beliefs. I find that truly juvenile (see your last paragraph). When I was young I enjoyed church since I got to see friends and my parents did not make me go but often sent me alone when they did not feel like going. To this day I would still encourage families to send their children to church if they feel inadequate to the task of teaching morals and self reliance.
I, as well as all semi-normal people, have a conscience to guide me and I listen to my conscience that has been shaped by a western philosphy which in the last 1600+ years has in some part been guided by Christianity and other influences. I may not believe in God or god but I do know right and wrong and I am less of a hypocrite than many self-proclaimed Christians, granting of course that proclamation is in no way proof of ones beliefs.
I don't think you are juvenile, immature or a brat for believing in what many think is an imaginary figure so why do you so easily direct your venom at me. Not very Christian of you. We probably believe in many of the same things because we were both raised in a society based on Christian ethics and I respect your desire to have faith in God it is a shame that you can not show the same respect and I would advocate a deeper level of tolerance to other ideas.

I'm a fundie but I can

I'm a fundie but I can still celebrate quite a bit of your thinking - have you ever looked into the origins of the phrase "doubting Thomas?"

It is certainly not a

It is certainly not a *delectable* irony - but definitely a *dispicible* one.

I think you're right, but

The implication is that Christians kids aren't taught to think critically and don't learn about world religions or Frederick Douglass. By the way, when did atheists become "rationalists?" Atheism is explicitly irrational. The statement that God does not exist cannot be proven, it can only be asserted by faith; it's logically impossible to prove a negative.

  "Other Rationalists", I presume, would refer to people who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You can't worship the State

You can't worship the State and God, so it's probably just a matter of time before this Sunday school for the atheists will be paid for by taxes.  East Germany tried a frontal assault on the church, but realized it was getting nowhere, so they tried substituting the State for the Church.  In the Church you have a Baptism, the East German State started a Welcoming Service.  The State would invite relatives and family and friends to come to a service in which the infant was presented to a government official, who received the infant as a new member of the State.  There was a Marriage Service and reception offered by the State free of charge, to replace the Church marraige.  This ceremony would welcome the couple into the State with the expectation that they would be happy and fruitful.  There was a Funeral Service offered by the State.  A eulogy would be given praising the person as a soldier for the Stae.  Then there was the Jugend Weihe, or Youth Consecration.  This was directed at people at an age when acceptance was very important.  The youngster was told to make up their mind in which to follow, their country or their church.  The State would then put a lot of pressure on teachers and children to make sure they chose the State.

"The Chancellor-the late chancellor-was only part correct.  He was obsolete.  But so was the State, the entity he worshiped. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man, that state is obsolete.  A case to filed under 'M' for Mankind in the Twilight Zone"  Rod Serling

DDR and DPRK

 You can't worship the State and God,  Indeed.  And, as you later affirm with your accounts of what the DDR attempted back in its existence, Leftists (and Communists) aren't atheists so much as they want to substitute God with the State.  In the DPRK, in my mind, it isn't too much of a stretch to say that Kim-Il Sung is God while Kim Jong-Il is Christ.  Such is the arrangement there. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

which we can't allow here

which we can't allow here of course due to the "separation of church and state:)!"

they are trying to force their government religion on us...

unconstitutional I'm afraid 

poor libs - just can't win dammit

‘I'd rather stick to the evidence.'"

‘I'm a person that doesn't believe in myths,' Hana says. ‘I'd rather stick to the evidence.'"

There are many more archeological finds that prove the truths in the Bible than they will ever hope to find to prove her Darwin theory.

Sticking with the evidence must mean that some sort of Sunday school is helpful to the children. Too bad they have to poison the young minds with their ideas.

what is the difference

what is the difference between evidence and myth? nothing really...

  Atheism Sunday School is

  Atheism Sunday School is not such a bad thing.  It's better than parents who instill no values or bad values.  As these little atheists go through life they will be exposed to Christianity or other religions and their heart will tell them what choices to make.

  The problem the adult atheists are having is trying to make the atheism lifestyle as satisfying as deeply held religious beliefs.  In their trying they are copying elements of religious services and lifestyle, just leaving out any belief they can't rationalize.  This leaves them at the mercy of current 'scientific' understanding and their own mental abilities to understand. This is like climbing a foggy mountain where no matter where you stop you can imagine you are at the peak.    But without recognition and developement of faith (an admission we don't know all and cannot know all) they are doomed to a knawing hunger because they have stunted the element of faith to a belief and hope in their own personal 'rationality'. 

know it all?

Any person who thinks they know it all is an idiot and is only talking to prove that point. To believe that being atheistic or agnostic is to dispell all faith is foolish even at an elementry level. The faith one has to have in oneself to step away from the emotional and psycological safety net of religious beliefs is a real faith. It may not be the faith that you believe people should have but it is still faith. Many atheist, like myself, don't buy into Darwanism 100% but believe there are ideas worth exploring and we believe the much of the Bible is true to history and follow in the vein of popular theological teachings of the time but it doesn't mean we blindly follow either idea.
You described faith as, "an admission we don't know all and cannot know all" and in a limited scope I agree with that statement. So why is it you feel comfortable categorizing all people not believing as you do when the seeming cornerstone of your beliefs is your faith and by definition - You don't know it all!

  I think you may confuse

  I think you may confuse religion and religious faith.  Faith and beliefs have usually been brought forward by extraordinary individuals who are deemed prophets.  People in trying to preserve and pass on the meaning of these inspired messages create a 'religion'.  This religion establishes symbols and rituals to create a community of believers.  The atheist Sunday School is a 'religion' in just this manner.  The trouble for atheists is deciding what are the core beliefs that their movement is built on.  What will be their 'Holy Texts'.  Being a 'free thinker' is an illusion.  Everyone alive is part of the culture and history of this planet.  I personally have little problem with someone who claims to be an atheist.  A moral atheist is not a bad person.  But the zealous atheists who see a need to restrict other religions.... well I have a problem with them.  (I don't see you as one of them)

MidAmerica,

A couple of the more notable german philosophers believed there was 'spirit of the times' in each era which guided the thoughts, morals and priorities of a given generation. In essence they replaced the Holy Ghost with a philosophical idea and this is very common when people try to separate from one belief to another. People hold on to what is comfortable and bolsters their ability to deal with the new problems created by a new way of thinking (even if that new way of thinking is thousands of years old). I do not confuse religion and religous faith but I do take offense to the notion that not having your religous faith (generic you not you specifically) makes me in any way a socially unacceptable to decent people which seemed the way this thread was heading.
Personally, I have a great deal of faith. It may not be in God or a god and at times it may be misplaced but it still exist. I respect people for their qualities as an individual including their faith and expect others to do the same. Thank you for realizing I have no wish to restrict religion.
BTW, the reason I go by Agnostic is because I don't want to be associated with the zealous atheist you find so offensive but I do want people to understand that any comment I make is not related to a religous faith.

I fnd it interesting that

I fnd it interesting that they picked Sunday for their weekly "class." It's just one more indication that atheists want the "trappings" (for lack of a better word) of religion without having religion.

In the same manner, when Ron Karenga made up Kwanzaa, he could have picked any 7 days of the year to celebrate it. He chose the week between Xmas and New Year's to place it in proximity to that celebration and Hannukkah, which is usually shortly before Xmas. Now it's routinely included as one of the "holidays" which implies an equal stature with the two religious feasts.

 

it is very telling - and

it is very telling - and the libs know it - they are all about "appearances"

of course we always remember: God is not worried:) 

Few suggestions to this

Few suggestions to this atheist camp/Sunday school to get their numbers up: Teach immorality. How about going to Sunday school naked, teach free sex (at early age), abortion and killing all forms of life, argue with parents/authority, don't shower, don't pay tax. If your parents are not working, stealing is okey, since you're hungry right, etc, etc. I'll bet they can find rationale to all of these....And have Time report it.

Recommend Hitchens to be the School superintendent!

E8,

Please don't confuse atheism with ACLU leftyism. Lumping too many different factions into one world view opens your arguments up to attack.

Atheism: 1archaic

Atheism: 1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness; 2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity.

Agnosticism:— ag·nos·ti·cism \-tə-ˌsi-zəm\ noun. 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god;  2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

ACLU leftism. Do you really believe that there are ACLU members on the right nowadays?

Atheism and agnosticism doesn't have much of a difference.  Agnostics won't commit to believe, because they haven't seen it yet and have no "proof" to show or hasn't come to the conclusion. But most, I believe, tend to believe though of the big bang theory, survival of the fittest, evolution and everything- living and dead- evolved from a 1 cell organism. The article cited that Atheists are rationale, same with humanists and leftist ACLU. Now are you a rationale person?  Look, maybe we are on the same side of political discussion- and religion is part of a political discussion or Romney won't be scrutinized that bad- but see things in a different way. 

Agnostic, I'm not posting to force my beliefs on anyone. But being neutral and have no opinion is like a Clinton's campaign: staying in the middle of the leftists agenda, and flip/flop depending who the audience are. That's cowardice. She has to state her opinion  and die for/with it.  

E8,

Because I choose to keep certain beliefs to myself because they are disruptive to the points of debate does not make me a coward. If it is that important to you than yes I am an atheist and have said so several times when I felt it was necessary and yes I know I'm going to hell. I also am not trying to force my beliefs on anyone and that is why I usually allow myself the luxury of referring to myself as an agnostic.
Okay, ACLU leftism was a bit redundant it would have been more correct to say ACLU backed leftism. This is in reference to my strong belief that judicial branch of our government is broken far beyond the legislative and executive branches due to the liberal activist judges, liberal jury selection and, for lack of a better term, the 'good-ole-boy network'. The network that creates the need for their work and makes social problems worse to guarantee future $$$$!
Me being rational is a matter of my own opinion at this point but I consider humanists and leftist to be rational than I would venture to say that you would consider me very irrational (I don't believe you do). But do you really believe that by my being an atheist I am automatically pigeonholed into being a liberal. In some ways I am liberal in other ways I am very much conservative and if I do recall as humans we have or were given, which ever you prefer, free will. As I said, I may be going to hell but I'm not trying to take anyone with me and I would like to see the Christian values of personal responsibility, family and ethics have a strong place in America. But those values are not exclusive to Christianity and having free will means that people will not always choose as you think they should after all you were free to make your choice and I would never insult or try to condemn you for your choice of faith.

Agnostic

Because I choose to keep certain beliefs to myself because they are disruptive to the points of debate does not make me a coward.

Couldn't get a clue from your screen name, that's for sure

 Be proud of your name - Anonymous

CA,

I've discussed this once before but don't expect you would miss a chance for an insult. That is okay if that is you’re what your religion or religious faith teaches you. But I posted as agnostic because I am not the type of atheist that is consistently described on this site (that would be a liberal activist atheist) and because I thought that just the acknowledgement that my opinions and ideas were not based in religious arguments would be enough of a clue to allow readers to understand that on issues relating in any way to religion my opinion is not based a preference to any one religion or sect. Truth be told I considered myself agnostic before I truly read the definition and now I would consider myself a passive atheist because I'm not out for converts or to insult. But please don't allow me to stop you.

I don't beleive in athiests.

I don't beleive in athiests.

Thus illustrating the fact

Thus illustrating the fact that Atheism and Humanism are religions. 

The fact that these religions are the only religions allowed in the public schools is a violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. 

So their exclusive teaching of evolution, the removal of "Christ" from the Christmas play, the censoring of "religious" content from the founding documents, the perpetuation of the lie that the founders were secularists...etc. etc. , in the government/taxpayer-funded schools is a violation of our constitutional rights.

If they want to promote their religion, let them have private schools.

As a Christian I personally

As a Christian I personally have no problem with an atheist's belief there isn't a God as long as they respect that I believe there is a God.

I don't think most atheists are bad at heart, they just have a misunderstanding about what this life is all about. As a Christian, you believe in God and you make a point to have a relationship with God. Then you grow to love God and feel satisfied or have a purpose in this life (namely to get to Heaven). An atheist has to use other avenues to find this kind of love or purpose. The problem is an atheist is never really satisfied because there is still something they feel in their heart is missing (even if they deny it). Something only a God or a spiritual being can fill.

 

Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns

nice try

You make a correct statement, a false assumption and then use the old 'drown the witch' statement. First, you are absolutely right that an atheist must find other things besides religious faith as a purpose. Second, to smugly assume the only way anyone can be completely fulfilled is in the same manner you are fulfilled is arrogant and what makes many of the more rational atheist defensive (free people tend to disdain those who look down on them). Finally, I am not in denial if I disagree with your esteemed opinion does not make me in denial (once again a very arrogant assumption).
I do not mean to be insulting and have no wish to offend but only to hold a mirror up to the impression you are giving to those who probably hold many of the same values and goals as you.

Paradoxical assertion

"it's logically impossible to prove a negative."

 Oh yeah? prove it!

I think it's funny that you make this untrue assertion, and then state that  "The implication is that Christians kids aren't taught to think critically and don't learn about world religions or Frederick Douglass."  Your proof of this "implication" is the omission of any discussion of Christian kids, which would be negative evidence.  Rather, this is what we call assumption of bias that more clearly proves the opposing bias of the complainer rather than any the original author might have.

LMAO

Take any higher level mathematics analysis course... you'll find proof by negative is a very useful and effective method.

I wouldn't file this article under "bias" because it's not like the Times has never done stories on Christian Sunday schools.  No, I think this story falls well into the "who cares?" rubbish bin.