While reading a news article profiling a Unitarian Universalist church (Church promotes universal appeal: Congregation says it’s open to all, even atheists), presumably somewhere in Fort Wayne, Indiana, I came across these statements:

Cynthia Powers has attended the church since 1971. She considers herself more agnostic than atheistic, partly because she doesn’t like the connotations associated with atheism.

“To me, an atheist is sort of an in-your-face person. I don’t want to put down something that helps people get through the day, because we all need help sometimes,” said Powers, of Roanoke. But, “I think I prefer not to have supernatural explanations for things.”

Let’s be clear about something. Atheism has a simple meaning – disbelief in gods – and this disbelief has nothing to do with the personality of the person disbelieving. I don’t know if such connotations are fabricated by believers or non-believers, but it doesn’t matter. Rather than helping the image of atheism break free from such connotations, by buying into them Cynthia is helping to propagate them. And, as is often the case, Cynthia chooses to use the word ‘agnosticism’ as a protective shield because it allows her to be an atheist without being an atheist – thereby perpetuating further connotations and misunderstandings. Rather than buying into these falsehoods let’s do what we can to stop their spread.

Cynthia, you’re an atheist – be proud of that!

The next thing that Cynthia said that bothered me was this line: “I don’t want to put down something that helps people get through the day…”

Now, it may seem like Cynthia is just trying to be respectful to other people for whom religion makes up a large part of their life – and I am sure she thinks so, too. But I think that this is highly disrespectful. Why? Cynthia is basically saying here that, while she is intelligent enough to dismiss supernatural explanations, the religious people that she encounters are too stupid to understand this and must be allowed to continue in their religious ignorance without interference. But why should we assume that religious people would necessarily have problems living out their lives if their religious beliefs are challenged? I have met many ex-Christians who feel that their lives are better and more fulfilling since they released the shackles of faith and religious dogma.

No – we are doing a disservice to religious believers if we are not willing to engage them in conversation – notice that I wrote conversation, not putting them down. After all, many of these same religious believers feel like it is their god-given mission to evangelize and convert the entire world. But, you know, if it helps them get through the day…

The Conversational Atheist puts it this way:

You respect a person by engaging people as humans who have the capacity to think and change their minds. If a person believes something patently false and absurd, you are not respecting the person by letting him pass through the night without being corrected.

The fact of the matter is this: purposefully keeping our arguments and reasons against religious belief from religious believers because, for whatever reason, we feel that they cannot handle it, will never help enact a positive change in our society.

And if you are still doubtful, just keep this in mind: These same people who use religion to help them get through the day are probably going to vote for Sarah Palin.