"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
The first president George Bush, in 1988

I'd like to start by telling you a story. When I was 9 years old my mother invited a woman she knew from work, and her 9 year old daughter, over to our house one Saturday. When this other girl and I went outside to play, she immediately asked me a question. It was not the kind of question most kids asked, such as: What do you like to play? Or what games do you like? Or even what TV shows do you like best? Instead this girl asked me the oddest question I had ever heard. She lifted up her chin in this self-important way, and her tone of voice was sort of imperialistic, and her hands went on her hips, and she asked me: "Are you a Christian?"

And I immediately thought, "Well, du-u-uh! This is the stupidest girl I have ever met." And so I answered in a smart- alecky way, "Well of course I am. Isn't everybody?"

The problem, I later found out, was that I thought she was asking a different question. I thought she was asking me if I was an American, and in my 9-year old world everyone who lived in America was an American. Wasn't it obvious? I lived here in America so I must be an American. Boy, this girl was dumb.

It was only later when I told my mother about this girl's question, and my mother explained what this girl was really asking, that I finally realized why I had misunderstood. It was because all my life I heard my mother say, "We're all Christians in America." She said it so often that I grew up thinking Christian meant American. I thought she was saying, "We're all Americans in America." Christian and American were synonymous in my mind and I didn't learn that there was any difference between the two until that day when I was 9 years old, when I learned I was wrong. But now, given the current overbearing pushiness of Christianity, and the scheming for control of fundamentalist Christians over both politics and social issues in America today, I am here to declare that I was right after all when I was 9 years old. Unfortunately, to most Americans today Christianity is synonymous with being an American -- if you are not a Christian you are not a "true American." And a belief in God is pretty much required if you want to be a politician or have any social standing or valued influence in America today, as proven by the necessity that all candidates constantly say "God bless America."

But apparently even just to be considered an ordinary citizen of the United States you must believe in God. In 1988 the first president George Bush, who spent so much time catering to Christian voters that a reporter asked him how he would try to win the votes of atheists, replied, "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." I would not be surprised to learn that the current president George Bush believes the same as the father who raised him.

But beyond these insults, are the angry, frightening slurs and criticisms thrown at atheists. Such as Jerry Falwell's statement that atheists, and their immoral influence, are to blame for the terrorist attack on 9/11 -- it was God's punishment for our ungodly ways. And closer to home, is this letter in the Modesto Bee last year that proclaims "shameless atheists" have turned Modesto into a "Mecca for crime, murder, meth, and auto theft, " and that atheists are "God haters . . . like the Nazi hatred for the Jews" Wow! Atheists are like Nazis. I can see now how God-believers are better people than atheists. Even we UUs, who are a church, who believe in the dignity and worth of all human beings, even we are not safe from these attacks. Susan from our fellowship, who used to be our church administrator, recently told me about a phone call she received from a man asking if UUs believed in Jesus. When she said, "Not necessarily. Some do, some don't," the caller said, "Then you should be burned out. You should die." I love that warm, fuzzy, God-loves-everybody-stuff that believers always spout, don't you?

But in seriousness, I don't think most atheists feel safe publicly admitting that they are an atheist. In fact, I've experienced some anxiety in preparing this sermon, a bit concerned about who all might be here today, worried that one of my Christian colleagues from work, or one of my students, might read the notice about today's service in the Modesto Bee and therefore judge me to be lacking in morality and integrity, because it is common knowledge that if you don't believe in god, if you are an atheist, you risk disapproval, harsh judgment, harassment, and censure, because atheists are believed to be immoral and the cause of all the social problems in this world.

Yes, if only everyone believed in God, wholeheartedly believed in God, there would be no more problems and the world would be a wonderful place. Except, didn't the terrorists who flew those planes into the World Trade Center believe in God? If I'm not mistaken, I don't believe they were atheists. In fact, they most likely were the most pious, most intensely God-believing people on those planes that day. And look what they did for the glory of God. And I don't believe atheists led the Crusades, or carried out the Inquisition, or burned people at the stake. I don't believe atheists have ever declared jihad or holy wars against anyone of any religion, or committed mass genocide against infidels. And I know it wasn't atheists who stoned a 17 year old Kurdish girl to death last week in Iraq because she fell in love with a Sunni. No, this holy act was done by her own father and brothers because they loved God so much.

So . . . how is it that atheists are immoral? I want to tell you that I am darn sick and tired of hearing that atheists are immoral. I want to stand here today and say that I am an atheist and I am moral. Some of my best friends are atheists, and they are moral. I have been thinking about this for a long time, and I have come to the conclusion that society has it backwards. It is not my contention that atheists are just as moral as religious folks. It is my contention that most atheists are more moral than the devout God-believers of this world. In fact, it is because atheists don't believe in God, because they must search for their personal values from a different source, because they don't accept prescribed answers to life's difficult issues but must reason out these moral dilemmas on their own, the hard way, that they often achieve a higher level of moral development than those who accept morality ready-made and struggle-free from God. It is the struggle, the internal wrestling with moral issues, the questioning, the weighing of pros and cons on all sides, that develops our moral reasoning. And this is what atheists are forced to do if they reject the easy answers from God.

Now I'm not saying all atheists are moral. There have been some in history, such as Stalin, who were very immoral. And I'm sure there are some ordinary, everyday atheists who do not live by any moral standards. So being an atheist is not a guarantee that a person will be moral or develop their moral reasoning. But I am saying that in comparing most atheists with most conventionally religious people, I believe atheists in general are more moral, because most religions, by nature, constrict the moral reasoning of their believers, while atheists, who are not constricted by religion, are free to develop their moral reasoning to higher levels.

Think of moral reasoning developing from a beginning level up to higher levels, like steps on a ladder. If I am a person who has developed only a low level of moral reasoning, then this is as high as I am able to reason at this time, and I am not able to value or even comprehend moral reasoning at a higher level. It's like asking a person who has been blind since birth to imagine the color red. If a person has never seen red, one cannot possibly imagine or "see" red in their mind. It is my position that this is similar to the moral reasoning many god-believers have been programmed to "see." If your religion blinds you to only one moral choice, then that is the only moral choice you will see. If your religion allows you only one way of moral thinking, then that is the only way of moral thinking you will use.

To clarify what I mean here, I'd like to relate my ideas to a theory of moral development from the field of psychology. Just like the analogy of going up steps on a ladder, Lawrence Kohlberg describes 3 levels, or steps, of moral development. He says that as children, with our child-like ways of thinking and reasoning, we all start at the bottom with level 1 morality, and that as we mature into adulthood we should eventually develop our moral reasoning skills to the third level. However, Kohlberg says most adults do not reach this third level of moral development, most adults do not make it past the middle level. I believe this is because of the overwhelming mind-stunting influence of religion on the thinking of most people. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions encourage only level 1 and level 2 moral thinking. Atheism, on the other hand, allows adults to develop their moral reasoning to level 3, the highest level. So if you stay with me now, I am going to explain how I see that this happens. I am going to take you through these 3 levels of moral development, but I am going to take a few liberties in condensing and renaming these 3 levels.

The first level of moral development is the Morality of Obedience. In other words, at this lowest level of moral understanding, morality is based on obedience. Children learn that if one obeys, one is good. If one disobeys, one is bad. This is further reinforced through rewards and punishments. Adults who have not progressed beyond this level of moral reasoning also see obedience to the rules, the laws, the customs, the traditions, as a primary virtue, and that rewards and punishments are the major tools to keep people moral, whether the rewards are social approval, status, or material goods, and the punishments are disapproval, fines, or prison.

Religious reasoning at this first level also uses obedience as the primary criteria for determining good and bad. Morality means obedience to God and God's rules. Do not question, do not doubt, do not talk back, do not think and reason for yourself. Besides, at this level you do not need to question, think, or reason because what is right and wrong has already been decided for you and written down centuries ago in a never-changing, never-updated, holy book.

At the time this holy book of moral instructions was written, between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago, it was appropriate for the early stages of the Hebrew culture. It was appropriate for the infancy of a nomadic culture consisting of many tribes, to band together for survival and to bond around one powerful, demanding God Parent. Obedience to a set of rules that supported the prejudices and superstitions of this fragile culture was necessary for its survival. But just as human beings develop from infancy, childhood, adolescence, and on into adulthood, so, too, do cultures develop. We are no longer that ancient Hebrew culture. The cultures at the forefront of human civilization today have survived the adolescence of the dark ages, moved through the early adulthood of the renaissance and the enlightenment, and are now trying to move into full-fledged adulthood. It is time we stop using the moral reasoning of children.

And yet . . . and yet . . . most religions today still stress the same obedience to God as in our civilization's childhood, and they all still solemnly warn that the original sin was disobedience to God, the sin of Adam and Eve disobeying God's command to not eat from the tree of knowledge. Knowledge. Think about this. Knowledge was forbidden.

For human beings to learn to think and reason for themselves was a sin. At this lowest level of moral development, obedience to God and to an archaic moral system devised to meet the needs of an ancient, unenlightened culture, is considered the greatest virtue. Because the Bible says so, is all the moral instruction one needs at this level.

But I consider this emphasis on obedience to be immoral. Not only because I believe that we have outgrown the God of our childhood, and not only because mindlessly following doctrine without thinking for yourself does not qualify as moral reasoning, but because obedience is one of the great sins of religion.

This "sin of obedience" reminds me of a study done by Stanley Milgram in the 1960s. Milgram wanted to study obedience. He was appalled by the atrocities of Nazi Germany, but it wasn't what the Nazis did that disturbed him so much as the fact that so many seemingly good, decent, upstanding German citizens cooperated with them. He could not understand what made them so obedient as to go along with the Nazis. Perhaps some defect in the German character he thought. One thing Milgram was sure of, though, was that Americans would never have cooperated with the Nazis, and he devised an experiment to see how quickly Americans would disobey an immoral request.

The experiment basically asked one good, decent person to electrocute another good, decent person. Would that person obey? Would you obey? Would you electrocute a stranger just because you were instructed to do so? Very briefly, the experiment involves 2 people. One is strapped into an electric chair and required to learn some bits of information. This person is an older gentleman, a grandfather-type. The other person, the actual subject of the experiment, is called the Teacher, and is instructed to give electric shocks to the grandfather every time he gives a wrong answer. The Teacher is placed in front of a large console with a long row of electric switches with their voltage written below. Each time the grandfather gives a wrong answer, the Teacher is to flip the next switch, increasing from 15 volts, to 30 volts, then to 45 volts, all the way up to 450 volts. If the Teacher hesitates about giving the shock, the experimenter says, in a very calm, polite voice, "The answer is incorrect, deliver the punishment, please, Teacher."

Does the Teacher obey? And if so, how far does he go before refusing to go further? Does he stop when the grandfather screams in pain? Does he stop when the grandfather begs to be released? Does he stop when the grandfather complains of chest pains and appears to have a heart attack? Does he stop when the grandfather is suddenly, deathly silent? Or does he continue to obey the experimenter who merely says, in a calm voice, "Once we start we cannot stop. The experiment requires that you continue, Teacher. Please flip the next switch."

I want to tell you now that the grandfather was an actor, he was part of the experiment, and he never actually received any shocks, but the Teacher did not know this. Milgram tested 1000 people, good, decent, American citizens, men and women, old and young, college-educated professionals and blue collar workers, big city people and small-town folks.

And the results were always the same. Out of 1000 people, not one person stopped flipping the switches before 300 volts. That was the point when the grandfather appeared dead. And 65%, men and women equally, continued obeying all the way to the end at 450 volts. They didn't like hurting the grandfather. Many of them cried as they flipped the switches, some of them begged the experimenter to let them stop, but they continued to obey anyway, right up to the point of the grandfather's apparent death. Ironically, these people who flipped the switches thought of themselves as good people who actually believed they were doing the right thing by obeying the experimenter. As Stanley Milgram later said, "More atrocities have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion."

Once we are indoctrinated with the belief that obedience equals good, it is very difficult to see any other moral alternative. To the detriment of humanity, most religions maintain power over the minds of their believers by cultivating this lowest level of moral reasoning. The result is a long history of atrocities such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch burnings, sanctioning slavery, genocide of entire nations who don't share your beliefs, oppression of women, the killing of homosexuals, killings between Protestants and Catholics, Sunnis and Shiites, suicide bombings of buildings and buses, and flying airplanes into the World Trade Center, all done in obedience to God's will. This is why I say that moral choices and behaviors based on the constricted and narrow viewpoint of level one thinking is not truly moral.

The second level of moral development is the Morality of External Authority. In other words, the determinants of morality are external to yourself. What is moral is defined by the common values of the community. People at this level take much of their moral guidance from authority figures such as religious leaders, politicians, experts, or people with social status. They tend to live by the expectations of others, they conform to the social norms, they have a need to be a "good girl" or "good boy" by going along with the prevailing values. What is right and moral is what their family, their friends, their neighbors, their pastor, their culture, says is right and moral. If your church says abortion is wrong, then it is wrong. No need to consider a different viewpoint, you already know it's wrong. If your parents say people of a different religion are evil, then if you are a "good" son or daughter you will agree with your parents that this other religion is evil. If your religious leaders say anyone who does not believe what you believe will go to hell, or is in league with Satan, or is an infidel and should be slaughtered, then you will believe this. If you are a true believer then it does not occur to you not to believe this.

After all, your religious leaders are the experts, they must know. And if your religion says don't vote for stem cell research because it is immoral to use a small non-conscious cluster of cells to help humanity, then you will accept the moral decision of your religion and allow thousands of living human beings to continue to suffer with devastating illnesses and injuries and believe that you are moral in doing so. You will not really think about the painful outcomes of your judgment, nor use your own conscience, because with level 2 thinking you have learned to make your moral decisions based on the prevailing rules and teachings of your religion and your society, and the commonly accepted opinions and beliefs of other people. But because many of these rules and accepted beliefs result in painful, life-damaging consequences for many people, diminishing the well-being, happiness, and quality of life for untold thousands of people, it is difficult for me, and for most atheists, to see how these choices are moral.

Now atheists, too, may function at this middle level of moral reasoning. They may have a desire to listen to an authority on only one side of an issue, or to resolve moral dilemmas by going along with what everyone else thinks is right. They may also base moral decisions on what experts say. Their experts might be other atheists, scientists, philosophers, or prominent people working for social or political causes they believe in. Whether a person is religious or an atheist, if they base their moral decisions on the authority, expertise, or opinions of someone else, they are using this middle level of moral development. However, it is my belief that atheists, because they are not taught to restrict their thinking to the only choices accepted by their religion or their god, and because they have cultivated the habit of questioning, doubting, and seeking new answers, are more likely to develop beyond this second level into the third level of moral reasoning.

This third level is the Morality of Internal Principles. According to Kohlberg, this is the highest level of moral development. Right and wrong is decided by mutual agreement between involved parties, and by one's own conscience. Values, rules, laws, and morals are not imposed from God, the government, tradition, other people's opinions, or ancient holy books. Instead rules and laws are decided by the democratic process, and moral decisions are based on a consideration of the well-being of all people, equitable human rights, and the belief that ethical principles outweigh unjust laws. Now certainly some religious people do reach this highest level of moral reasoning, but they generally are people who have been able to break away from the strict dogma of their religion. They are people who question the narrow parameters of strict obedience to an ancient moral system; people who decide to interpret God and the Bible in a more mythical, metaphoric way; people who let themselves question, challenge, and reason their own way through religious and moral issues. In other words, religious people who become more like . . . well, like atheists.

Because I believe it is this very process of questioning, challenging, and reasoning that atheists must use to work their way through the psychologically difficult burden of religious expectations that most atheists inherit from their families, that helps atheists develop their moral reasoning to this third level of moral development. Most atheists do have a strong moral system. Like all human beings, atheists have a need for a set of moral principles in order to ensure the survival and well-being of individuals and of society. Most atheists adopt a set of humanistic principles for their moral guidelines, called humanistic because it focuses on human beings, and meeting the authentic needs of human beings, and includes such things as compassion, empathy, justice, love, personal autonomy, and self- determination. Humanism paired with atheism results in a moral system that encourages us to look internally to our own conscience to find the right answers to life's moral questions, and to develop ethical principles -- based on reason, science, and our own shared sense of humanity -- that will enhance the quality of life and well-being for all.

This is the morality of atheism.

I hope that if I am ever 9 years old again, that when I am asked if I am a Christian, that I will say, "Heck no. I like to reason through everything for myself. I am an atheist, I am a humanist, and I am moral."

[Delivered 27 May 2007. Pam Loyd is a member of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Stanislaus County. She has a Master's degree in Psychology and is a counselor. She also is a very spiritual person who constantly seeks out alternative spiritual paths.]