Would you risk family relationships just to be right?

[Azdgari]

How does a minority gain momentum? By getting people in the majority to fight for them. How many people are fighting for atheists? Nearly none. Why? Because people don't identify with us. Why not? Because they don't even know who we are. Who are the only people in the world guaranteed to at least grant you an audience, an initial hearing? Your family. Who is most likely to identify with you even if they don't fully agree with you? Your family. Who is most likely to fight for you even if they don't share your views? Your family. Who is going to tell other people--and be believed--that atheists can be good and moral people who deserve a voice in society? Your (theistic) family.

When people realize that their views can hurt their family members, particularly their children, their behavior is more likely to change.

You want to complain about theists? You want to benefit from the work of other atheists? In my mind, until you tell your family, you have not earned that right.

Well put, L6.  Do I have your permission to copy this and use it elsewhere?  My university's atheist club could use something this well-worded.

[Star Stuff]

I just read all the replies, and damn was I right. What a bunch of spineless cowards.

You were not right L6, you are merely seeing things from your own viewpoint, and not open to the possibility that situations are often more complicated than clammering for your "rights" to say what you want.  "Not on the Fence" has explained that her parents are very old.  How do you know that it is not the best thing to leave it alone in this case?  Perhaps it would cause them enormous grief and upset; perhaps they don't have there wherewithall to hammer out ideas and debate like we all do here, heck, they probably don't know how to turn on a computer.  So I find your rant insensitive, self centered, and tantamount to beating up on someone weaker.  Being that vocal might have it's place in some families, but not in this one.

[Noman Peopled]

Family is everything. As dysfunctional as my family is, they're still my family. Being so far away from them, I may not interact with them as much as I like or should, but they are my family and I would do many things for them that I may not do for others.

Okay, again, I'm not trying to be an ass here, or even advise, just offering my thoughts for consideration.

Family is decidedly not everything. There's friends and partners. It'd be preferrable to have a good relationship with my relatives (as with all other people), but if that's not possible without giving up a part of myself that I consider essential, I wouldn't bother. (Although, again, my actual reaction would be context-dependant - but I won't lie being asked a direct question)

I've never understood what the phrase "they're still family" means. Yes, they are. That's trivial. What's the other meaning? Family is not an absolute. You don't have to please your family no matter what. Having a good relationship with your relatives is not compulsory. In fact, I've observed that what makes people most unhappy about any relationship is clinging to it past the point where it makes sense.
Of course it's hurtful when relationships end and of course you shouldn't just let it go at the drop of a hat. But if I spend a year trying to explain in a civil manner that I don't believe in god (or don't want to study law, or will marry whomever I want to) and my father/mother/whoever still insists that I'm immoral and misguided to the point where all we do is fight, then sorry, but I have better things to do with my time. If I'm depending on you (emotionally or financially), I'll go and try to break the dependency. If I live in a community where being myself will get me ostracized, I'll move. A good life to you, and goodbye. Call me anytime.

Luckily, I have a much better relationship with my parents than that, and evidently you do too. I wouldn't go so far to say I'd do things for them I wouldn't do for close friends, though.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi Noman Peopled,

Family is decidedly not everything. There's friends and partners. It'd be preferrable to have a good relationship with my relatives (as with all other people), but if that's not possible without giving up a part of myself that I consider essential, I wouldn't bother. (Although, again, my actual reaction would be context-dependant - but I won't lie being asked a direct question)

I've never understood what the phrase "they're still family" means.

By "they're still family" I mean that the love and respect that we have for each other because we're family is the foundation of our relationship. This is true even when one does not "please" another or we disagree about God, marriage, work, whatever. We celebrate each others' successes and grieve over each others' pains, despite, and sometimes because of, our differences. I realize that we are blessed to be this way. I'm not saying we're perfect or that everyone treats everyone this way, but in general and for the most part it's true. I think it is very unfortunate that not everyone has that type of family.

I also think that type of family, like any relationship, takes work. If Not on the fence tells her family and they react negatively to her, then it's up to her how she will respond in turn -- in a similar way or by the high road. I think the way we respond to these situations shows our character. It takes forgiveness and self-sacrifice, which are hard.

If I gave advice to Not on the fence it would be to show her love for her family regardless of how they treat her. They're still family.

That's my two cents.

[Azdgari]

SC, to be clear:  Are you defining family as those with whom one shares a genetic relationship, or are you defining it as those with whom one shares a close social relationship?

[SimpleCaveman]

SC, to be clear:  Are you defining family as those with whom one shares a genetic relationship, or are you defining it as those with whom one shares a close social relationship?

Wow, that takes us to a level of formality beyond the intentions of my post and probably beyond how I think of it. However, if it will help in some way, I guess I think of my family as brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, cousins, aunts, uncles, and then their respective nuclear families. There are some that come and go (like my brother's wives). We try to extend to them the same love and respect. Does that help?

[Azdgari]

Hmm, it doesn't really...sorry.  It's an important question that I asked, though, because it gets to the heart of why family is important - and that in turn bears directly on the subject of this thread.  All of the people you listed are genetically related to you (or indirectly, through someone else who is).  But why does that make them important?

For example, my fiance's extended maternal family are (for the most part) a bunch of abusive alcoholics who extend no positive kinship to those in her immediate family ("immediate" being mother & siblings).  Is it important to maintain a relationship with those extended family members based purely on their genetic relationship to my fiance and her immediate family?  If so, then why?

Her extended paternal family has had nothing to do with her immediate family at all, and hasn't since the death of her father.  Based on what little contact there has been, they are simply not interested in her immediate family.  Is it important to maintain a relationship with those extended family members based purely on their genetic relationship to my fiance and her immediate family?  If so, then why?

[Traveler]

My immediate family knows exactly how I feel, and are in similar places, so they're not an issue. But, my extended family contains a number of extreme fundamentalists of various stripes. With them I remain polite, but I don't lie about my beliefs. If it comes up I say something like "I'm not religious", or if asked to go to church, a simple "no thank you." In my opinion, there's no need to be rude about it, or in their faces, but I don't pray, I don't say "amen" after their grace, I don't go to church. If I'm at church for a wedding or funeral I don't take communion, I don't kneel, I don't say the responses to whatever they're doing, and I don't sing the hymns. But, just as if I were visiting a foreign cultural ceremony, I sit quietly and don't disrupt it.

The only time I can remember really fighting with myself over whether to argue was when a cousin's daughter said something really strongly about reproductive choice. I ended up keeping my mouth shut, but I think if it happened now I'd talk with her about it. Usually, if I do speak up with them, I can ease my way into the conversation in such a way that they might actually hear me. At least a little bit. But that one I missed out on, and since they live way out of state it probably won't come up again. Heck, odds are I'll never see them again.

I think in your situation, where its immediate family, I'd occasionally have to say something. I made friends with some fundamentalists out west and I was very open with them about my feelings and beliefs. When they started expressing too much jesus talk I gently reminded them that I am not christian. We got along fine, even if we probably felt that the other was wacko. And by remaining friends, they got to see that non believers are not all evil satanic psycho killers.

[Star Stuff]

I think I tend to agree with Azdgari on this.  The level of loyalty to family can, and often does go to rediculous levels.  I think that the loyalty & respect ought to be earned, not automatic or demanded.  I think too that our tendency to be "loyal to family" to such unusually high levels can be explained in evolutionary terms.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hmm, it doesn't really...sorry.  It's an important question that I asked, though, because it gets to the heart of why family is important - and that in turn bears directly on the subject of this thread.  All of the people you listed are genetically related to you (or indirectly, through someone else who is).  But why does that make them important?

You want the answer based on evolution?

For example, my fiance's extended maternal family are (for the most part) a bunch of abusive alcoholics ...

Her extended paternal family has had nothing to do with her immediate family at all, and hasn't since the death of her father.  Based on what little contact there has been, they are simply not interested in her immediate family.  Is it important to maintain a relationship with those extended family members based purely on their genetic relationship to my fiance and her immediate family?  If so, then why?

Yes, those are tragic situations. Like in any relationship, you can't control the other person and for safety or sanity we might stay away from them. When my alcoholic father was angry we would stay away. Thankfully, I don't think he was abusive. But he was still my father and I loved him. When he got help, our relationship was still positive and loving.

I'm not sure what you think I might be talking about. I'm not talking about enabling or masochism or any thing like that, and everyone has to be held accountable for their actions and choices. Again it goes to the character of the individual as to how they handle the situations.

One way to put it, though this was not the intention of my original post, is that I think it's better if you're not the one doing the estrangement (right word?).

[Azdgari]

You want the answer based on evolution?

Evolution cannot answer the question I asked.  I asked why they are important, not why they were important.  Evolution is no guide to our actions or values, except to the extent that evolution-in-action actually impacts our actions in some way.  So far as I can tell, this is not such a situation.

Yes, those are tragic situations. Like in any relationship, you can't control the other person and for safety or sanity we might stay away from them.

Except that it's not really all that tragic - at least, not for my fiance and her immediate family.  Not in practice.  They get on fairly well as a family unit on their own (it is not without its own issues, but that's another topic).  It is only a tragedy when working from the position (as-yet unexamined critically) that family relationships have inherent value (as in, value that derives specifically from their status as family relationships, as distinct from non-family relationships).  I remain unconvinced of the merits of that position.  Since it is a position to which you seem to hold, and since you are making posts and giving advice based on that position, it is fair to ask you to critically examine that position, no?

When my alcoholic father was angry we would stay away. Thankfully, I don't think he was abusive. But he was still my father and I loved him. When he got help, our relationship was still positive and loving.

And he loved you, too, didn't he?  He was an alcoholic, and as you say, that did impact your relationship with him.  But you did love each other, didn't you?

I'm not sure what you think I might be talking about. I'm not talking about enabling or masochism or any thing like that, and everyone has to be held accountable for their actions and choices. Again it goes to the character of the individual as to how they handle the situations.

I hope my second paragraph of this post highlights what I am actually getting at.

One way to put it, though this was not the intention of my original post, is that I think it's better if you're not the one doing the estrangement (right word?).

I don't know for sure off-hand whether that's the right word, but I know what you mean by it, so let's keep using it.  Of course that's better - both morally and practically.  But how does that apply in cases where the estrangement already exists?  Basically where I am going with all this, is:  At what point of estrangement with one's family members does it become more reasonable to seek relationships with non-family members instead?

[Jim]

I think I tend to agree with Adzgari on this.  The level of loyalty to family can, and often does go to rediculous levels.  I think that the loyalty & respect ought to be earned, not automatic or demanded.  I think too that our tendency to be "loyal to family" to such rediculous levels can be explained in evolutionary terms.

Maybe.  But, when you piss them off, then later in life you get into trouble, they may not be there for you.  "Family" is much more than nucleic acids and weird uncles that must earn their keep with your good graces at every turn.

Their loyalty and respect for you is affected by how graciously or clumsily you come out.  So, do you piss them off with a big coming out?  That depends on the personality ingredients of everyone involved.  It's different with every family.  You, and you alone must make the decision (I speak here of the generic "you", not you, Star Stuff).  We have seen many people on this forum who "came out" -- atheism, homosexuality, whatever -- and with some it completely pissed off their folks and fucked up their relationship with their family even more than it was before.

So, in any given case, one must guess: will my life be worse with angry family, but with the release of coming out... or will my life be worse with a cooler family situation, but holding back on my true feelings?  Only you can answer that.

I think that L6's post was filled with bravado, and I think the decision is not for anyone else to make, shame, or cajole you into doing.  I do not think it was good advice.  I, personally, would not suggest that one do the politically expedient or motivated thing above your relationship with those who love you, or to prove a relationship with those who love you. 

Be prepared to make concessions.  My mother knows I don't believe.  She also knows that whenever she talks to me about religious stuff, I go kind of glassy-eyed.  But, when the holidays come around, we celebrate Easter and Christmas and I go to church with her.  Why?  Because she likes it.  Going with her does not harm me in the least.

And, not everyone needs to know.  Telling everyone about your new-found __________-ism may feel good and liberating, but it can also have a boomerang effect.

With that said, admittedly, the lesbian gay community outing process did bring the topic more out into the open than before.  I wonder how many relationships were dashed against the rocks, never to heal.

[Azdgari]

With that said, admittedly, the lesbian gay community outing process did bring the topic more out into the open than before.  I wonder how many relationships were dashed against the rocks, never to heal.

Relationships between real people, or relationships between a real person and an imaginary person?

[Jim]

With that said, admittedly, the lesbian gay community outing process did bring the topic more out into the open than before.  I wonder how many relationships were dashed against the rocks, never to heal.

Relationships between real people, or relationships between a real person and an imaginary person?

Heh.  I don't care about imaginary people.  Although, I am sure that there are some lesbians and gays who either have imaginary friends or still believe in God.

[Azdgari]

That wasn't my point, Jim.  Some imaginary people are closely based on the images of real people.  They are false images of those people.  Hence, "imaginary".

For example, the imaginary straight daughter, of a mother who only has - in reality - a lesbian daughter.

[Star Stuff]

Maybe.  But, when you piss them off, then later in life you get into trouble, they may not be there for you. 

With that said, admittedly, the lesbian gay community outing process did bring the topic more out into the open than before.  I wonder how many relationships were dashed against the rocks, never to heal.

Good post.  But again, why is it that the religious family member(s) get to hold that stick of condemnation and ostracism?  Why is that not viewed with more distaste than a persons beliefs?

[Jim]

That wasn't my point, Jim.  Some imaginary people are closely based on the images of real people.  They are false images of those people.  Hence, "imaginary".

For example, the imaginary straight daughter, of a mother who only has - in reality - a lesbian daughter.

How about the relationship between a mother (who might have prejudices or a limited mind-set) who loves her daughter, and her daughter (who can't understand why everybody doesn't just get it, already?) who loves her mom?

Is that real enough?

[Azdgari]

Who is the "her daughter" who is the subject of her love?  Is she real, or imaginary?  Is the real daughter putting forth a false image that is attracting the love, while the truth would not attract that love?  If so, then I put it to you that there is no real relationship there that is worthy of consideration (apart from practical purposes).  If not, then it can bear the daughter's honesty.

If correcting for the disconnect between real and imaginary partners in a relationship actually breaks the relationship, then it was too fake for consideration in the first place (imo).
If correcting for the disconnect between real and imaginary partners in a relationship does not break the relationship, then isn't it worth it?  Of what value is dishonesty?  Does one want to be loved, or does one want his or her facade to be loved?

[Jim]

But again, why is it that the religious family member(s) get to hold that stick of condemnation and ostracism?  Why is that not viewed with more distaste than a persons beliefs?

Because, unfortunately, the condemnation and ostracism are part and parcel of BOTH the mechanisms of society and the mechanisms of Abrahamic faiths (and other faiths as well).  It is a tool that they wield to prevent lambs from straying too far, so to speak.  And, in fact, I am sure that many loving parents use it as a reflexive first measure when their kid is suddenly doing something unexpected.

I am not saying that it is right or that it is fair.  Only that it is.  Big coming-outs and the resulting knee jerk reactions do not necessarily bring bigger happiness in life, family love, or guarantee successful outcomes.

[Star Stuff]

Because, unfortunately, the condemnation and ostracism are part and parcel of BOTH the mechanisms of society and the mechanisms of Abrahamic faiths (and other faiths as well).  It is a tool that they wield to prevent lambs from straying too far, so to speak.  And, in fact, I am sure that many loving parents use it as a reflexive first measure when their kid is suddenly doing something unexpected.

Ya; I've heard it said: "All mothers have a black-belt in guilt".

Big coming-outs and the resulting knee-jerk reactions do not necessarily bring bigger happiness in life, family love, or guarantee successful outcomes.

True, but they don't need to be big, emotional announcements either, they could be a simple, calm answer to a question.

 :shrug

[Nam]

So being raised in a christian family, everyone, (except for one) is a strict, brethren christian.  You are a non believer now.  Do you risk your relationship with your family by telling them that you dont believe anymore?

Everyone (excluding my two siblings) are Christian. My parents are Christian, their parents were/are Christian. Their brothers and sisters, Aunts and Uncles are all Christian. All my cousins are Christian. And, 99% of them are Conservative Christians. Most of them on my father's side are Baptist. And, most of them on my mother's side are Southern Baptist. Some practice, some don't. Those who practice gossip and/or ostricize those who don't, and are in "name only".  I do have some cousins who are Catholic but they are in the minority of our family since they're the only hispanics in our family from marriage of my Great Aunt.  Which let me tell you, most of my family back then ostricized her for marrying an hispanic. Racist twats.

Or just let it go?  I would not tell my parents as they are very old, and in the last stage of their lives, but it would probably get back to them if the rest of the family knew.

I told my mother when I was 18. I think my father always knew, and it didn't really seem to effect him too much, I guess. Though, before we stopped talking to each other (nothing to do with anything about religion) I think he used to slightly push it on me from time-to-time.

My siblings are in their 50's so they are not going to be open to anything I say.

My brother is an Agnostic-Atheist who recently married an Atheist. My sister is an Agnostic-Atheist who is soon to marry (I believe) a non-denominational Christian. I think he doesn't practice, and perhaps he doesn't believe, I don't know, it says "Christian" (no denomination mentioned) on his Myspace page.

I just get so frustrated sometimes when things are said, and I cant say how I feel. :shrug

So say them. That simple.

-Nam

[Jim]

...disconnect...

The daughter that the parent sees is the daughter that she has raised, the personality that the daughter has presented to her. 

If correcting for the disconnect between real and imaginary partners in a relationship actually breaks the relationship, then it was too fake for consideration in the first place (imo).
If correcting for the disconnect between real and imaginary partners in a relationship does not break the relationship, then isn't it worth it?  Of what value is dishonesty?  Does one want to be loved, or does one want his or her facade to be loved?

Az, in your desire to break this down to the minutest details, you end up producing this flippant stuff.  This is about emotion and family, not programming a thermostat.  Using logic and philosophy will not turn out the best results, they only will explain the tragic or successful outcome, after all is said and done.

Just because illusions are shattered and feelings hurt, sometimes permanently so, it does not mean that the initial relationship was some hollow, shallow, worthless thing.  Sometimes it is the unveiling itself which produces the hurt, sometimes it is the manner in which it is done.

And if you really, really want to go deep, then understand this: all you think you are is the set of personas that you present to people, and the persona that you present to yourself.  When you unmask yourself, remove the facade -- with whatever intent you had -- you will forever change others' thoughts of you, sometimes not for the better, even when you think that you are doing it for good.

[Jim]

True, but they don't need to be big, emotional announcements either, they could be a simple, calm answer to a question.

You're right, they could be.  I'd guess that those have smoother outcomes.  Not everyone is so lucky to have that, and sometimes it might be hard to tell beforehand.

[Azdgari]

The daughter that the parent sees is the daughter that she has raised, the personality that the daughter has presented to her.

She should keep the lie going because it's already been "stated" by default, eh?

Az, in your desire to break this down to the minutest details, you end up producing this flippant stuff.  This is about emotion and family, not programming a thermostat.  Using logic and philosophy will not turn out the best results, they only will explain the tragic or successful outcome, after all is said and done.

You are resistant, then, to any attempt at employing logic to find out what the "best results" are?  How much logic are you (un)willing you allow in this discussion, Jim, just for the record?

I do have some idea about this sort of thing, Jim, believe it or not.  My dad practically disowned me when he found out that not only was I not a fundy like him, but that I was also not amenable to conversion.  It was very traumatic, but at least our later partial reconciliation was based on who we each were.  I didn't have to hide myself and present a false son for my father to fawn over.  What did I have to gain by faking it, had I known how to at the time?  Some good feelings, I suppose.  More exposure to bigotry; more encouragement of it, by association.  Inhibited personal growth and undermined self-worth, from what I have been able to tell through introspection.  I am not being flippant, I am speaking from experience.

Just because illusions are shattered and feelings hurt, sometimes permanently so, it does not mean that the initial relationship was some hollow, shallow, worthless thing.  Sometimes it is the unveiling itself which produces the hurt, sometimes it is the manner in which it is done.

Certainly the manner is something to consider.  My reasoning above was based purely off of the transfer of information, without including how it is done.  That's a whole discussion of its own, though.

And if you really, really want to go deep, then understand this: all you think you are is the set of personas that you present to people, and the persona that you present to yourself.  When you unmask yourself, remove the facade -- with whatever intent you had -- you will forever change others' thoughts of you, sometimes not for the better, even when you think that you are doing it for good.

The alternative is to intentionally live a lie.  How different is that, in principle, from embracing the religious self-delusion itself?

[Star Stuff]

The alternative is to intentionally live a lie. 

I don't think anybody is suggesting that.  If the other family members have in their heads that I am the same non-thinker I was when I was a child, then so be it. That doesn't mean that I'm living a lie.

[Azdgari]

In that case then you are, with your silence, intentionally misleading them.  How is that not intentionally living a lie?

[Star Stuff]

In that case then you are, with your silence, intentionally misleading them.

I don't concur.  "Leading" and "misleading" are deliberate actions.  Not coming out with disbeliefs is not leading.

How is that not intentionally living a lie?

In the same way that not actually being gay, but am in the eyes of someone else, is not living a lie.

[Azdgari]

I don't concur.  "Leading" and "misleading" are deliberate actions.  Not coming out with disbeliefs is not leading.

Deciding not to let someone know the truth is misleading.  Sometimes misleading is justifiable.  It depends on what you want out of the situation.

In the same way that not actually being gay, but am in the eyes of someone else, is not living a lie.

That's hard to parse, but I think I get what you're trying to type.  Yes it is, if through your choice of actions you have the option of letting that person know that you are not gay.  If that person disbelieves you, then that's another issue entirely.

[Star Stuff]

I don't concur.  "Leading" and "misleading" are deliberate actions.  Not coming out with disbeliefs is not leading.

Deciding not to let someone know the truth is misleading.

Not if it doesn't come up.

In the same way that not actually being gay, but am in the eyes of someone else, is not living a lie.


Yes it is, if through your choice of actions you have the option of letting that person know that you are not gay.

Again, not if it doesn't actually come up.  If a person or family member has it in their head that I'm gay (not that there's anything wrong with that   )....the onus is not on me to make sure they know that I'm straight.