Is It Ethical to Conceal Your Atheism?

This piece was originally published in Free Inquiry magazine.

Let’s say you’re an atheist. Let’s say you’re a college student. Let’s say your parents are supporting you, including paying your tuition. And let’s say your parents are adamantly opposed to atheism — so much so that if they learned about your atheism, they would stop paying your tuition, cut off all financial support, and cut you out of the family. (Not a hypothetical situation, unfortunately.)

Is it ethical to conceal your atheism?

Coming Out Atheist
We often treat this question, and questions like it, as a no-brainer. In my book, Coming Out Atheist: How to Do It, How to Help Each Other, and Why, I repeatedly counsel atheists to hold off on coming out if they don’t think it’s safe — if they think it will get them fired from their jobs, cut off by their parents, kicked out of their homes. I do think coming out is ultimately the right choice for most people — overwhelmingly, most atheists who have come out say it made their lives better and they’re glad they did it — but I think it makes sense to hold off if the timing is bad. As I delicately phrased it in the book, “Don’t screw up your life.” I give this advice without hesitation, and it’s mostly accepted without hesitation.

But I’ve gotten some questions about this — yes, from atheists — that have made me look at this question more carefully. I’m still coming to the same conclusion — but I think it’s more difficult than I’d originally thought, with a more nuanced answer.

The issue at hand: If people are giving you something, and they wouldn’t give it to you if they knew something about you, is it ethical to lie about that information, or even simply to withhold it? If a boss were considering hiring you, and you knew they wouldn’t if they knew about your embezzlement conviction, is it ethical for you to conceal that? If someone you were dating were considering marrying you, and you knew they wouldn’t if they knew you were a Republican, is it ethical for you to conceal that? I think most people would say No.

So by the same token, if your parents wouldn’t pay your tuition if they knew you were an atheist — don’t they have the right to make that decision? Isn’t it their money, and their right to decide what to do with it? Isn’t honesty a core ethical value — especially when people are making decisions that would be affected by your information?

Schindlers List book cover
Now, the most obvious counter-example is one that comes up a lot in ethics discussions — people who helped protect Jews from the Nazis. If you were living in Nazi Germany, and you were hiding a family of Jews, and the Nazis knocked on your door and asked if there were any Jews in the house, would you be obligated to tell the truth? I think the answer is an obvious and impassioned, “No freaking way.” (It’s actually a tenet of Catholic dogma that lying is always always always wrong, and there are many Catholic theologians, from Augustine and Aquinas to contemporary theologians John Finnis, Ronald L. Conte Jr., and the Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy, who argue that it would be wrong, even in this situation, to lie — which, in my opinion, is just one more example of the moral bankruptcy of Catholicism.)

The “Nazis searching for Jews” example is an extreme one, of course. But it does point to the principles at hand: You’re not ethically obligated to tell the truth if (a) it’s unreasonable or wrong to ask the question, and (b) an honest answer would destroy someone’s life. Yes, honesty is a virtue, and an important one. But ethics are full of situations where one core ethical value conflicts with another, and we have to weigh the good and the harm of each value in that particular instance. And in this instance, the harm done by lying to the Nazis is so absurdly minuscule, and the harm done by telling the truth is so great, that the choice should be obvious.

What’s more, in the hiring situation, it’s completely reasonable for a boss to want to know if their employees are convicted embezzlers. That’s relevant information. But to put it mildly, the Nazis do not have a good reason for wanting to know if there are Jews hiding in the house.

So, to bring it back to the question at hand: Where does concealing your atheism fall into this continuum?

In the case of parents who would cut off their atheist children, I would argue that the harm done is pretty severe. It’s not as severe as the harm done by squealing to the Nazis about the Jews you’re hiding, but it’s considerable. I would also argue that, while the harm done by keeping this big secret from your parents is not minuscule, it isn’t outweighed by the harm done by them cutting you off. And of course, I would argue that they don’t have a good reason to do that. To put it mildly. Ditto with bosses who would fire you, landlords who would throw you out, judges who would deny you custody.

fat tony bart simpson
You can take this line of thinking too far, of course. I’m reminded of the Simpsons episode where Bart is persuaded to join the Mafia by mob boss Fat Tony: “Bart, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?.. Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?… And what if your family don’t like bread? They like cigarettes?… Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?”

Similarly: Is it wrong to conceal your atheism from your parents who are housing you? What if they’re paying for your tuition? What if they’re helping you with the down payment on a mortgage? What if they’re making out their will, and you’re managing okay without an inheritance but you sure would breathe easier with that extra cushion? What if they’re deciding whether to send you to the Bahamas?

There is a point where the harm done by losing your parents’ financial support slips over from “ruining your life” into “would be awfully inconvenient.” We might not all draw the line in the same place, but I assume we can all agree that the line exists. And that’s the point, I would argue, where you actually are obligated to spill the beans about your atheism — or at least, you’re obligated to not accept whatever moolah they’re offering. No matter how unfair it is for your parents to use your religious beliefs or lack thereof to decide whether to send you to the Bahamas — it’s still their money.

But there are some situations where the harm caused by concealing, deceiving, or even outright lying is far outweighed by the harm that would be caused by telling the truth. Honesty is a virtue, but it’s not the only virtue, and it’s not always the most important one. In many situations, it is not only reasonable, but right, to set aside strict honesty in order to protect people from harm.

And that’s true even if the person you’re protecting is yourself.

Coming Out Atheist
Bending
why are you atheists so angry
Greta Christina’s books, Coming Out Atheist: How to Do It, How to Help Each Other, and Why and Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless, are available in print, ebook, and audiobook. Bending: Dirty Kinky Stories About Pain, Power, Religion, Unicorns, & More is available in ebook and audiobook.

{advertisement}
Is It Ethical to Conceal Your Atheism?
{advertisement}

37 thoughts on “Is It Ethical to Conceal Your Atheism?

  1. 1

    Greta, you seem to be focused on loss of material goods by coming out. What about parents, friends, and family who would continue to love you but be deeply hurt? Not exactly hypothetical as it’s why I remain closeted.

  2. 3

    I think a big factor in where we draw the line is what we consider the obligations of parents etc.

    To start with the easy question, it is pretty widely accepted that parents have a duty to feed, clothe, and house their children to the best of their ability until the child is 18, regardless of a child’s beliefs or behavior. So when a parent kicks a minor child out for atheism, we don’t say “well, it’s the parent’s money”, because we consider the home, food, etc to be the child’s right. And thus, the kid has a right to lie if that’s what it takes to get their parent to fulfill their obligations.

    When it comes to college tuition, I think people who are fine with a kid deceiving their parents would be less ok with the kid deceiving, say, a scholarship fund. You could argue that this is partly because the harm in the latter includes some more honest kid not getting the money. But I think I bigger factor is that many of us also consider paying for college, if able, to be a standard part of parenting, not some above-and-beyond gift like a trip to the Bahamas. (See, for instance, how hard it is to get need-based financial aid without consideration of parents’ resources – it is assumed that parents will pay if they can except in extreme cases.)

    So whether you think lying to get college paid for is ok may depend in part on whether you think college is owed. (Of course, this is not independent of the question of harm; I think the degree to which a parent is obligated to help a child has a lot to do with the harm expected from not helping.)

  3. 4

    Similarly: Is it wrong to conceal your atheism from your parents who are housing you? What if they’re paying for your tuition?

    FWIW, I’d argue that, in these particular situations, it’s not unethical to shield oneself from even more unethical behavior on the part of the hypothetical parents.

    I’m a parent myself, and made every effort to model the kind of values and behavior that I wanted my children to learn. That hasn’t stopped just because our relationship has shifted from “parent/child” to “mentor/mentee.” To use offers of financial support and gifts – ostensibly given out of love – as leverage to influence decisions my adult children are legally and morally entitled to make == modeling controlling, manipulative and arbitrary behavior. And I’d be damaging our relationship in the bargain, if my husband’s (and my) relationship with his controlling and manipulative mother is anything to go by.

    My kids are actually in the situation quoted above: we’re currently supporting them through college. While they were still in high school, we made it clear that we had sufficient cash to give them ONE free ride, so when/if they enrolled in college, they would need to take their studies seriously, because there would be no second chances (like I got, lol). That was the only “string” attached to the deal and they’ve held up their end of it. Yes, we’d personally be dismayed if one (or both) of them – say – joined Mars Hill Church, but that would still be their decision to make… we would not attempt to punish them by changing the terms of our support (or the relationship that the promise of support was based on).

  4. 6

    I was told by probably 20 of 25 Mexicans at a recent party on my patio to lie on my application for a permanent resident visa. So I wrote down Catolico. Every single one of the guests know that I am an atheist, which is not particularly common in Mexico (nor is a truly practicing Catholic), and none of them hold it against me, at least to my face. But when it came to flying under the radar of whatever bureaucrat might get pantibunchified over such a scandalous admission on a visa application, they all deemed it idiocy to provoke any ill will from the Oficina de Migracion.

    So, in answer to #5 Trebuchet, yeah, it was all about protecting my own interests. And I feel nary a scintilla of ethical shame. It’s just a dirty damn shame that everyone felt I ought to lie. And I suspect the immigration offices on the north side of the Rio Bravo are probably staffed with shitstains who would be even MORE aghast at a Latino trying to get a U.S. visa as a Godless Pinko.

    I’m reminded a bit of the controversy over Outweek in the late 80s, early 90s. Was it ethical fro them to out public figures? Well, if that public figure was a politician or public administrator pushing anti-gay agendas, then abso-fucking-lutely. But if it were Bernie Williams or Mike Piazza, well, then, it was really none of Outweek’s business to pre-empt their own personal decision simply for lurid headlines. The decision to come out is intensely private, and requires great social delicacy in many circumstances — or at least it did back then. Thank goodness it’s getting easier in the industrialized world. I think the same holds true with atheism, if you’re in a family or community that would react with tremendous hostility. We have absolutely no right to judge another’s “ethical” responsibilities, ort lack thereof, in such instances.

  5. 7

    Coming at it from another perspective: What business is it of theirs? A person’s religious beliefs are between that person and God (of the lack thereof). If they do not believe you are an atheist, why disabuse them of that notion? I suppose this is lying by omission, but that seems like a pretty minor offence.
    OTOH I remember a case where a will left the estate to those children who were members in good standing of the RCC. None of them were, and they contested the will. They ultimately lost, and Catholic Charities got the money, because using bribery to encourage religious faith was not illegal.
    So, don’t lie, but don’t expect too much either.

  6. 8

    I’m not sure on this one. But I do have a counter question:
    Do your parents / do your friends / does anyone have a right to know about your inner beliefs. Are you accountable to anyone for what you believe?
    And where the lying is concerned I would see a difference between telling lies of your own accord, and someone’s putting you on the spot. I think I would argue for a sort of “bodily-autonomy-for-the-mind”.

  7. 9

    It occurs to me that the natural answer to my post #1 would be another question: Are you afraid of them being hurt, or yourself? The answer is yes.

    Well, I can’t speak for Greta here, but I think a natural question to follow up with here is: how will they respond to you, both in the short-term as well as the long-term? How that hurt is likely to be expressed should inform your decision to be truthful, or to stay closeted.

    I think that it’s not unreasonable for parents, family and friends to feel hurt, and subsequently express their disappointment, when someone they love reveals an uncomfortable truth about themselves (from their POV). But if they truly love you, then they should, at some point, be able to come to terms with it, if they want to have a relationship with you.

    Speaking from my own experience, a relationship is a two-way street – a fact that helped me deal with the “manipulative and controlling” MIL I mentioned above. She and my FIL were staunch Methodists and fixtures in their local church. By contrast, I’m a life-long atheist and their son pretty much let Sunday School go in one ear and out the other. So when we announced we were getting married, I managed to deflect her enthusiasm for planning our wedding in their church (which was presumptuous above and beyond the religion aspect), by stating, truthfully, that a) I did not want any kind of a formal wedding (we basically signed the papers at the courthouse and that was that); and b) I was not a Methodist, nor was anyone in my family, so that even if I was inclined to a wedding, having it in a Methodist church simply wasn’t in the cards.

    In other words, I did not explicitly reveal my atheism, as I sensed it wasn’t the best way to get on with my soon-to-be in-laws.

    But it was ultimately tough to conceal. When we hosted meals, for example, we did not say grace; and when we were guests, we did not bow our heads or say “amen.” We never mentioned church activities in conversation. So, I imagine that they guessed the truth, but preferred not to think about it.

    When our first child was born, however, it had to be made explicit when my MIL expressed an interest in arranging for a baptism in (of course) their Methodist church. I nicely-but-firmly replied that I would NOT be indoctrinating my children in any faith – that was a decision that belonged solely to them when they were mature enough to make it. And by that time in our relationship, she had learned that I could be pushed only so far – past a certain point, I’d push right back. Needless to state, she dropped the subject – as she (by then) realized her son and I spoke with one voice.

    But that’s me. IMHO, you have to do what you think is best for your situation. If it’s an issue that they may never be able to accept, then staying closeted may well be the right thing to do, for your own peace of mind.

  8. 10

    I have the opposite problem. My staunchly Catholic mother knows I’m an atheist. She’s terrified that I’ll go to Hell because of my atheism. It would gratify her no end if I “returned to Mother Church.” I’ve been tempted to lie to her about reconverting but I just can’t. I cannot lie to my mother even to give her peace of mind.

  9. 11

    I think the topic of implied Parenthood responsibility for their children, who they brought into this world without any concent from said child, cannot be fairly ignored here. That responsibility may be hard to define, but it does make the role of a parent in a child’s life (no matter how old) incomparable to, say, the role a boss has to an employee, or a citizen has to their state, or even that of an uncle or grandparent.

    Afterall, one can easily leave a job, even become an expatriate, but one does not emancipate themselves from their families (child from parents but also parents from child) without some highly extreme and unusual circumstances occuring in the real world (as opposed, say, merely in people’s brains). And while the list of such circumstances likely varies a bit from individual to individual — and, don’t get me wrong, I accept there are good reasons to, in rare circumstances, ostricize and disown ones’ own child — I remain confindent that a difference of opinion about the existential meaning of life would not remotely qualify on its own, even as a potential consideration, on the list of any ethical person out there. To fisccally sanction a child from otherwise available funds, based on purely emotional and intellectual grounds — such as ones based on differences of religion, politics, or chosen lovers/lifestyles/proclivities, etc. — is ignoring ones ethical parental obligation that they implicitly signed-on to when they first agreed to create and raise that child in the first place.

  10. 12

    My mother, some months before her death, had called me in sheer delight from the hospital where she was undergoing chemo for aggressive recurrent breast cancer, saying that she had got my formerly atheist grandmother to pray with her and to ask Jesus to come into her heart. After the funeral, during which Grandma had said some things that were, um, surprising to hear from a recent convert, I asked her whether she had actually prayed with my mother in that way. Grandma said, “Yeah, I did. It made your mother happy and I didn’t give a shit about that crap.” Of course, this is also the woman who (out of respect for my parents) never revealed, or let the rest of our extended family reveal, that my mother and father were the only religious members of the entire family. Yup. When I came out to my extended family, I was met with a huge “Oh, great, we don’t have to hide it anymore.” Opinions in the family are mixed, however, about whether my grandmother’s play-acting was strictly ethical, or for that matter whether someone should have told me sooner than my mother’s wake that the rest of the family was godless.

  11. 13

    Here’s another dilemma: telling the truth is important, but so is keeping promises. When I married I was nominally a Christian (or at least, I could honestly say I was a theist), and religion was Very Important to my wife. I essentially promised (I can’t remember whether it was an explicit or implicit promise, and I doesn’t make much difference to me either way) that I would support her in raising our kids in the church. That pretty much meant going to church with her, to “serve as an example.”

    After my faith evaporated ten years into our marriage, she figured out almost immediately, but so far we’re still keeping our marriage together, and I still love her deeply. But coming out to my kids would have meant a whole world of strain that could easily have broken us up – and my family is more important to me than anything.

    There’s also the rest of my family. It’s nothing like the examples above, of people being manipulative with money or anything like that. We all get along with each other incredibly well, and we’re supportive and positive with each other. Why would I want to risk messing that up?

    So I’m still dressing up and going to church each week, gritting my teeth or snorting internally at all the silliness. When my kids reach the age where they start their own questioning, I’ll probably tell them the full story. Maybe they’ll be deeply resentful of me for living a lie all these years – maybe not. My flimsy rationalization is that I grew up in the church and it helped make me who I am, so it’s likely that they’ll go through the same process. Really, though, it’s just that I’ve got a lot of inertia, and I really enjoy the life I’ve got, and I don’t feel like running the risk of kicking the whole thing over.

  12. 14

    ” But ethics are full of situations where one core ethical value conflicts with another, and we have to weigh the good and the harm of each value in that particular instance. ”

    Agreed. It is the EFFECT of a statement, whether or not its a lie, that is the moral issue. Seems to me one can judge all of your examples by their moral results. There are many good reasons to make it a practice not to lie, but lies or truths in themselves are neither ethical nor unethical.

    .

  13. 15

    I think that ethics are extremely demanding in terms of being selfless. But I don’t live up to them. In general as far as selfish acts go refusing to let other people punish you for your atheism is pretty damn minor. if you feel guilty about it you can always increase your donations to UNICEF.

  14. 16

    I’m quite surprised. I may not have read as thoroughly as I should, but the analogy to sexual orientation jumps out at me. Parental support, child custody, job security, friendships etc. etc. are at risk when any sexual or gender-minority person acknowledges the truth where it can be heard.

    So I think the ‘truth v. harm’ axis should be compared for both situations. Yes, we should avoid exposing ourselves to serious harm; but we should value truth enough to come out when the risk is reduced. Yes, we want to avoid causing avoidable distress (e.g. for a dying parent) but some infliction of distress is bound to be the price of truth.

    I’ve read/heard about Catholics sheltering Jews from Nazis, using some Byzantine rationalizations and specific wording to avoid revealing the people sheltered. For example: ‘why would you think there were Jews in this convent?’ Unfortunately, precisely the same style of thought and speech has been employed to conceal pedophiles. ‘The diocese isn’t paying hush money to anyone…’ (when the diocese HAS payed hush money last week.

  15. 17

    Greta, you seem to be focused on loss of material goods by coming out. What about parents, friends, and family who would continue to love you but be deeply hurt? Not exactly hypothetical as it’s why I remain closeted.

    Trebuchet @ #1: Yes, in this piece I was focused on the loss of material goods and financial security, because of the specific ethics involved in concealing something in order to maintain access to material goods and and financial security. But no, of course it’s not the only issue involved in the decision to come out or stay closeted.

    I can tell you that overwhelmingly, atheists who have come out about their atheism are glad they did it it, and say that it was the right decision. And that’s true even when it was hard, and created serious problems with the people they’re close to. But of course, it’s a very personal decision, and nobody but you can decide what’s right for you.

    Coming at it from another perspective: What business is it of theirs? A person’s religious beliefs are between that person and God (of the lack thereof). If they do not believe you are an atheist, why disabuse them of that notion? I suppose this is lying by omission, but that seems like a pretty minor offence.

    machintelligence @ #7: Again: Overwhelmingly, atheists who have come out about their atheism are glad they did it it, and say that it was the right decision. Living in the closet is hard, and it does real psychological and emotional damage. And it’s not always a simple matter of keeping your mouth shut (although that’s stressful as well): because so much of our society is structured around religion, simply staying silent often isn’t an option. We often get put into situations where we have to lie, or at least deceive, if we want to stay closeted. And coming out is how we push back against anti-atheist bigotry, form communities and political movements, and make things easier on other atheists who want to come out.

    Look at it this way: Would you say about LGB people that their sexual orientation is nobody else’s business, and ask why they should disabuse people of the notion that they’re straight? If not, then why say it about atheists?

    To fisccally sanction a child from otherwise available funds, based on purely emotional and intellectual grounds — such as ones based on differences of religion, politics, or chosen lovers/lifestyles/proclivities, etc. — is ignoring ones ethical parental obligation that they implicitly signed-on to when they first agreed to create and raise that child in the first place.

    Dago Red @ #11: I tend to agree — but I also agree with eeee @ #3 above. The big question here has to do with what parental obligations actually are. Are parents morally obligated to not throw their minor kids out of the house? Yes. Are they morally obligated to send their kids to Bermuda? No. Are they morally obligated to send their kids to college? Some would say Yes, others would say No. There is a point where people have to right to not give their money to people they don’t approve of, even if you think their reasons for disapproval are screwed-up.

    badgersdaughter @ #12: You know your story is in the book, right? It’s one of my favorites — and it’s a great example of how staying closeted can keep family peace, but at the cost of making other atheists in the family feel isolated.

    When my kids reach the age where they start their own questioning, I’ll probably tell them the full story. Maybe they’ll be deeply resentful of me for living a lie all these years – maybe not.

    brucegee1962 @ #13: If you haven’t read “Coming Out Atheist,” you might want to. There’s a common theme in the book of kids and teenagers who wished their atheist parents had told them sooner, because they were having their own doubts or had already rejected religion on their own, and they could have used the support. Of course it’s a hard decision with no one right answer — it’s just a perspective you might consider. (You might also check out Dale McGowan’s new book, In Faith and in Doubt: How Religious Believers and Nonbelievers Can Create Strong Marriages and Loving Families. I highly recommend it for all atheists in marriages or relationships with believers, and it deals with situations very much like this one.)

  16. 18

    I am an atheist who is mostly closeted in meatspace, mainly to avoid hurting my family. I’m at the point in my life where I wouldn’t mind a bit if people knew, but it would hurt those I love. My spouse is still a Christian and still very active in church, and he already gets a lot of undercurrent disrespect because I’ve opted to stop attending. I was “lucky” in that there was a big split of sorts a few years ago and I was able to leave under the guise of that split, so there was a “reason”. If the people there knew that I was an atheist, he’d be blackballed entirely. It would be the height of selfishness to take that away from him with the reason “I’ve got to be me”. I grew up seeing how my denomination treats people in marriages with nonbelievers; I will not let that happen to my spouse if I have any control over it.

    brucegee – it’s surprising how perceptive kids can be. You’ve got things worked out the way that works for you, but you can still teach your kids critical thinking and, most importantly, to not believe adults just because they are authority figures. When i was growing up, there were zero role models who told me it was ok to question church leaders. I had no role models who demonstrated that you could be a good person without going to church three times a week. Just being there, and teaching them that it’s ok to question, will be a good thing.

  17. 19

    Once a kid hits 18, parental obligations end. At that point, it’s not about legal enforcement and totally about what parents believe is their ethical obligation to their ADULT children. Frankly, most people I know would be overjoyed if they could float their kids’ tuition in full, but I don’t know anyone who has the kind of money to do that. Most parents just fill out FAFSA forms for their kids and try to get them Stafford loans. Once graduation happens (and for half of all students enrolling, graduation doesn’t happen, even within 6 years) those loans are on the kid. Maybe the parent helps out a bit. Or maybe I just roll with too many poor people?

    To the point at hand, what if parents would withdraw their support if they found out their daughter had an abortion, or their son was hanging out with people they had explicitly told him not to spend time with? What if they would withdraw their support if they found out their kid was gay or using drugs or partying too much? What if they found out their kid had converted to a different religion? What if their kid started dating someone of a different race? What if the kid joined some xenophobic campus group? As far as I’m concerned, if the “truth” doesn’t materially impact the kid’s standing at the university (examples of things that would are trouble with the university’s judicial system, or extremely poor academic performance) then the kid isn’t in any way under any obligation to inform the parent(s). Why? For the same reason the hypothetical was posed in the first place: because the parents can withdraw support at any time, for any reason or no reason at all. Parents can call the kid up one day, say hey, we decided not to pay the rest of your tuition because it’s Tuesday or because the Red Sox won the World Series (when the Cardinals won), because . . . reasons, and there isn’t a thing the kid can do about it. If the kid feels guilty about covering up an unapproved behavior or non-behavior (or a sin of omission) then once zie is done — assuming zie doesn’t fess up to the parent(s) — pay the parent(s) back. However long it takes.

    There is nothing ethical about holding hostage the single most powerful tool any human has to entrance into the middle class: a college education. It is the most reliable means of setting oneself up for a base level of economic security throughout one’s life. Parents know this. Students know this.

    But I know there are no limits to which people will guilt, coerce or harass others into at least tacitly if not explicitly accepting religion even in secular democracies. For those people all I can do is shout out digitial hugs, and say that if they need to come clean for the sake of their conscience, then do it. Few things are worth someone not being able to sleep at night. There are ways — hard ways — to make college happen even for essentially abandoned independents, even if it means not finishing in the standard four years. But they’re available.

    This whole topic makes me want to start a scholarship fund for students in good academic standing who’ve been financially abandoned by their parents due to conversion/de-conversion.

  18. 20

    As long as colleges and FAFSA require the finances of the parents be counted in the means assessment for financial aid, I think it is ethical for parents to support whatever expectations they’ve given the child, according to their means. (We were able to gift both our kids with a parental income so low that they qualified for everything. And we help where we can — we have good credit, so can at least borrow money in an emergency.)

    Also, I think it is far more unethical for parents to withdraw support as coercion or retaliation than for a student to keep her religious beliefs private. If you were raised with the specific understanding that the college fund of a godless child would be donated straight to Our Lady of Perpetual Guilt, then you might feel that going through the rigamarole of emancipating yourself for FAFSA purposes and striking out on your own is better for your mental health, and that’s great, but I don’t think it’s ethically necessary. What the parents are doing, when they set limits on what you can think, or what your sexuality is, is requiring a lie. They require that your thoughts, or your sexuality, be what they wish them to be, and that means that even if you happen to agree with them, or believe as they do, or have the “correct” sexuality, it’s still, in a sense, a lie, because it is required to be so. That’s rather extremely unethical.

  19. 21

    The issue at hand: If people are giving you something, and they wouldn’t give it to you if they knew something about you, is it ethical to lie about that information, or even simply to withhold it?

    It depends on what the information is.

    In the case of atheism: That’s a private belief, and nobody’s business by your own. Freedom of conscience and freedom of thought take priority.

    The same would reply to any other ideology or lack thereof.

    If a boss were considering hiring you, and you knew they wouldn’t if they knew about your embezzlement conviction, is it ethical for you to conceal that?

    In that case, I would say no, it isn’t ethical to conceal that. Problems with your work history such as embezzlement are relevant to your potential employer’s business. Literally.

    But there are some situations where the harm caused by concealing, deceiving, or even outright lying is far outweighed by the harm that would be caused by telling the truth. Honesty is a virtue, but it’s not the only virtue, and it’s not always the most important one. In many situations, it is not only reasonable, but right, to set aside strict honesty in order to protect people from harm.

    On the other hand, I’ve always found that for myself maintaining a very large lie is costly in emotional terms.

    So to me it becomes a cost analysis: The individual should balance the cost of what will be inflicted or withheld if you speak up against the cost of maintaining the lie, and make the call that feels right to them.

  20. 22

    Eh I profanity-edited what my grandmother said the first time I told you about it, lol. She is a lovely, gutsy, profane “auld hoor” as they say in my husband’s family.

    Which reminds me, a couple months ago I “came out” to my husband’s mother on our mutual birthday. She fixed me with her eagle eye (she is also a lovely, gutsy woman who doesn’t mince words) and said, “You don’t have an opinion one way or another on this religion stuff, do you?” OK, bear in mind this conversation took place in Strabane, the most bombed spot in the Northern Irish Troubles, and you’ll understand why I had the sudden urge to run under the blackberry bush in the hedgerow and not come out. Nevertheless I mumbled something about being a clueless Yank and “not having a dog in the fight”. She was having none of it and insisted I tell her whether I was religious. “No,” I squeaked. “Good,” she said with the greatest possible satisfaction, and poured herself another shot of Jagermeister. 😀

  21. 23

    I liked the OP a lot. It touches difficult issues indeed.

    A small remark for the start:

    It’s actually a tenet of Catholic dogma that lying is always always always wrong, and there are many Catholic theologians, from Augustine and Aquinas to contemporary theologians John Finnis, Ronald L. Conte Jr., and the Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy, who argue that it would be wrong, even in this situation, to lie — which, in my opinion, is just one more example of the moral bankruptcy of Catholicism

    This intrigued me and I did some checking. Looks like it can be called “a tenet of Catholic dogma” only in a very loose sense of the phrase. From what I saw, these opinions have the status of “sententia communis” (common teaching), which means that the opinion is popular indeed but it’s not obligatory: theologians are free to differ here and in this sense it is not a dogma.

    More to the topic: I’ve never been in a situation where declaring myself an atheist carried a risk of harming me. I experienced however the conflict between the truth and the harm for other people and I sympathize a lot with people living through this particular quandary.

    It was the case of my grandmother. She brought me up and I owed her a lot. And yes, I consciously abstained from discussing religion with her. She died many years ago without knowing the truth.

    I wonder to what extent such situations can be adequately described as ‘moral conflicts’. I’m used to thinking of moral conflicts as involving conflicting moral values on both sides – you try to weigh them and if the case is really troublesome, even after such a weighting you may remain undecided. Anyway, in moral conflicts it is the moral values on both sides that are crucial. How much of it do we have in such cases?

    See, on the one hand there were indeed moral values at stake. One could argue that my grandmother had a right to know the truth about people so close to her and that she didn’t deserve being lied to. (As a matter of fact, I think that indeed she had such a right and that she didn’t deserve being lied to.)

    On the other hand, there was this desire to spare her the suffering. And here is the issue: I don’t think of it in terms of moral values. As far as I remember, back then I didn’t experience this horn of the dilemma in moral terms either. I loved her, she was close to me, and I didn’t want her to suffer. That’s it. From my point of view, it was not about general moral rules and values. It was also not about moral rights. It was about her – a concrete person, with all the generalizations being simply irrelevant.

    Of course one could try to redescribe the situation in moral terms (sure!) … but the problem is that such moral descriptions sound to me psychologically hollow. In effect I tend to think of situations of this sort as conflicts between morality … and something else. And the ethical side is not always the one to sympathize with.

    But maybe it was just my particular way of experiencing the situation.

  22. 24

    Mind you, if you live in the bible belt, and practically every person who could hire you would, knowingly or not, be taking your atheism into account when deciding to hire you, there’s not much of a choice. Of course, one could move out of that region, but if you’re looking for a job, you’re not going to be financially stable enough to give up every possible support structure you have on the off-chance that some stranger in a strange land will hire you just as you’re making down payments on a new place to stay and such.

    Also, what’s this about parents paying for your college? I don’t think that represents normal people, but, like, sitcom people.

  23. 25

    @Dark Jaguar:

    Also, what’s this about parents paying for your college? I don’t think that represents normal people, but, like, sitcom people.

    See my #4 above. 😉

    I have to admit you’re probably right about us not representing “normal people.” But I was charmed by the comparison to “sitcom people” – never thought of our family in that particular way, but it makes for an amusing thought experiment.

  24. 26

    Granted I’m not a parent and never will be. But I would argue that people who choose to have children owe their children every opportunity, every advancement, every assistance they can give them. To quote Sidney Poitier’s character in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?”: [context: his father has just lectured him for disobeying his orders, saying his mother and he went out of their way working hard for him growing up]

    “Listen to me. You say you don’t want to tell me how to live my life? What do you think you’ve been doing? You tell me what rights I’ve got or haven’t got… and what I owe to you for what you’ve done for me. Let me tell you something. I owe you nothing. If you carried that bag a million miles, you did what you were supposed to do, because you brought me into this world, and from that day you owed me everything you could ever do for me. Like I will owe my son, if I ever have another. But you don’t own me.”

    Parents bring their children into the world, that is a conscious choice on their part (most of the time). They choose to create a child that needs food, shelter, clothing, education, safety, security, social development, and a million other things. The parents are responsible for giving their child everything in their power that will help them. And that means they are responsible for giving their child everything up until their child is self-supported, whether or not they agree with their child’s politics or religious choices, romantic or sexual interests, or any other decision the child makes that does not directly affect others’ quality of life.

    Withholding a support network to coerce a person to pretend to be religious is to force that person to live a lie. So the question should never be, “Is it unethical to lie about being an atheist if not doing so will lose you a support network?” The correct question to ask is, “Is it unethical to withhold support of a child to make them go to church?” and the answer is an unequivocal YES.

    If you are self-supported and atheist, and your parents wouldn’t like it if they found out, you are not morally obligated to tell them but it’s probably a good idea. People tend to focus on the binary in morality – good/bad – and forget about this huge “neutral” zone. This is pretty morally neutral, I think, because doing it or not doing it is not likely going to majorly affect anyone’s quality of life – and if it is, then choose the path of least suffering. But while I am a strong believer in honesty and truth, I don’t think you owe “volunteering the truth” to people who would hurt you to the extent of their ability.

  25. 27

    brucegee1962:

    A suggestion, to help you retain your sanity and your household peace: Agree to continue the weekly church outings, but say that you want to start taking the kids around for a fuller view than just one church. Find out which churches are in your area, and spend a month going to each. Let (encourage) your kids interact with the kids at the church; talk with them afterwards about the sermons, and so forth. I’d definitely suggest including a Quaker service and maybe a Universalist Unitarian one in the mix. Heck, if you can get your wife to go for it, find a synagogue or mosque that is willing to allow interested non-members to attend.

    Exposure to a wider range of faiths can quite often serve as the spark to questioning the idea of faith itself. Furthermore, even if it doesn’t push them to be agnostic or atheist, a little ecumenicalism can go a long way towards ensuring they aren’t the sort of Christians who insist that everyone else is doing it wrong and going to Hell.

  26. 28

    One comment on the OP itself.

    If you were living in Nazi Germany, and you were hiding a family of Jews, and the Nazis knocked on your door and asked if there were any Jews in the house, would you be obligated to tell the truth? I think the answer is an obvious and impassioned, “No freaking way.”

    There is one example that is current and relevant to lots of people, and will continue to be for far longer than any of us would like. They may not have had to do it but they do know people who’ve made them think through what they’d do if the occasion arose.

    What do you say to an enraged, abusive partner or parent demanding to know where their spouse or child is hiding – in your house or somewhere else? This is something that relatives, neighbours, workmates, teachers and other folks often have to consider even if they don’t expect to be put on the spot like this in reality.

    We’d all say “I don’t know” or some equivalent even if we’d been the ones to help them escape in the first place. And that is the right thing to do. Anyone who tells an abusive partner the address of a women’s refuge or drags a kid from the back of the house to send them off with a parent to facilitate a beating or a forced marriage or any other horrible thing is morally bankrupt.

    And I’d commend the approach suggested by freemage @ 27 for brucegee1962.

  27. 29

    I’m surprised to learn some Catholics teach lying is a sin even if you’re trying to save Jews from Nazis. I was raised Catholic and in confirmation class, I remember the teacher taught the exact opposite that in situations like that, lying would be permissive because defending life is more important. I’ve also heard Catholic apologists while trying to defend Pius XII’s behavior during World War II say that he helped fake Catholic baptismal and birth certificates for Jews so that they could more easily escape from Nazi Germany. (example http://www.michaeljournal.org/piusXII.htm ) So apparently not all Catholics agree lying is never ok. On the other hand though while googling Pius XII and fake birth certificates, I also found several Catholic sites condemn the story as false and argued that while they believe Pius XII secretly worked to save Jews’ lives, he would have never permitted lying as a tactic for similar reasons to what Finnis et al give, to never commit a sin for what you perceive is for the greater good. (example http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/02/2662/ ) I don’t know how my confirmation teacher would react to Augustine, Aquinas and all these other authors who argue lying is a sin absolutely all the time, however I found It pretty interesting reading how these authors try to get around this absolute rule against lying by saying it’d be better to stay silent or to dodge giving a direct answer to the Nazis. It reminds me of a post Adam Lee wrote on Daylight Atheism about a Catholic apologist trying to wiggle around the prohibition against using condoms even when it is to just prevent disease and during when a woman is pregnant and can’t have another child by suggesting using a perforated condom so the “unitive and procreative” aspects of sex still remain http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2011/03/the-catholic-church-answers-your-sex-questions/ , or how certain Hareidi Jews build automatic elevators that can be ridden without pressing buttons because somehow button pressing violates resting on the Sabbath. They’ve made a bunch of uncompromising rules they say can never be broken, but when they realize such rules are impractical, it’s ok to make tons of inconvenient loop holes as long as the rule is never directly broken. All this accomplishes is making certain decisions far more complicated than they have to be.

    Kind of a tangent to the main point of the article, but the really divergent views on lying within Catholicism was something I was unaware of until I decided to look it up. Thanks for broadening my horizon, Greta!

  28. 30

    Greta #17 responded to DagoRed #11: The big question here has to do with what parental obligations actually are. Are parents morally obligated to not throw their minor kids out of the house? Yes. Are they morally obligated to send their kids to Bermuda? No. Are they morally obligated to send their kids to college? Some would say Yes, others would say No. There is a point where people have to right to not give their money to people they don’t approve of, even if you think their reasons for disapproval are screwed-up.

    Fair enough, and I agree. But what this particular issue re: really comes down to is not ultimately a financial consideration at all for the parents. Rather, the questioning issue at the heart of this is: when is it ethically appropriate for parents to manipulate their children using money (or any other means) to get the kids to change their behavior? I think we all can agree that parents have the right (even have the ethical obligation) at times to do just this. When an unruly and destructive child refuses to grow up and become responsible adults is the big one that comes to mind. I am not opposed to parents using their money (or the law or many other means) to get their kids to function as real independent adults in our society.

    But I still find some things are not EVER fair game in this kind of manipulation, IMO — namely those things we, as humans, cannot choose for our lives or change as a function of will-power — such as what we ultimately believe (or don’t believe) religiously/spiritually, our general political outlook, and, of course, our sexual orientation (to name the few topics that really stick in my craw). I can’t accept that its ever ethical for a parent to attempt to manipulate their children, with money or in any other way (other than respectful discussion and argumentation), to try and get them to “change” these things in particular, because I don’t believe such things to be under the control of personal choices — they run deeper than that.

    Thus, a parent who atempts to manipulate things about their child that the child cannot change (which is what I believe this cutting-off-of-funds issue is all about), to me, still seems ultimately unethical no matter how you choose to peal this banana, no?

  29. 31

    There is a point where the harm done by losing your parents’ financial support slips over from “ruining your life” into “would be awfully inconvenient.” We might not all draw the line in the same place, but I assume we can all agree that the line exists. And that’s the point, I would argue, where you actually are obligated to spill the beans about your atheism — or at least, you’re obligated to not accept whatever moolah they’re offering. No matter how unfair it is for your parents to use your religious beliefs or lack thereof to decide whether to send you to the Bahamas — it’s still their money.

    To me this seems to fall under the basic doctrine of Clean Hands. People who engage in bigotry and bullying have forfeited their right to some of the consideration they’d otherwise be entitled to.

  30. 32

    Agreed that concealing the truth can cause harm. You hit the nail on the head in regards to concealing sexual orientation as this could cause emotional harm to the individual trying to come out of the closet. However, I’m having a tough time seeing how concealing atheism causes harm. I don’t fess up about this with friends or colleagues who are devoutly religious. I feel no personal harm or guilt and as far as my friends are concerned, what they don’t know won’t hurt them. What’s wrong with that? I mean I like to masturbate to porn but I don’t tell close friends who are anti-porn. They don’t need to know about such private matters. What’s the harm?

  31. 33

    To me it seems that the determining factor here is relevancy. I’m not required to disclose every aspect of my life to every person I meet. If I omit an irrelevant detail about my life then that is not a lie of omission. If someone asks me an irrelevant question, then I’m under no obligation to answer them at all, let alone honestly.

    My irreligiosity is irrelevant to my employer. It would be unethical for my employer to ask about it (in some cases it is illegal). It would be unethical for them to fire me over it. I am not required to disclose that information to them, and if they ask about it I’m free to either tell them that it is none of their business – or to lie if necessary. Furthermore, I think it can be unethical to expose one’s religiosity or lack thereof in the workplace at all. I don’t feel that political and religious discussions belong in a workplace at all (well any workplace that isn’t inherently political or religious). They distract from the job at hand, they sow discordance and they can be downright exploitative if you are in a position of power.

    I would also argue that my irreligiousity is irrelevant to my parents. I don’t see any reason that they need to know that information. And it doesn’t matter what they would do with the information if they knew of it. Furthermore, it would be unethical for them to disown/disinherit me over it. It doesn’t matter if it is their money. The power differentials created by money and property are a huge source of corruption in our society. It is simply wrong to use one’s money to control, manipulate or hurt other people.

    Now the situation is very different for a partner (and to some degree a friend). In that case you are trying to build a close personal relationship with someone, and pretty much everything can become relevant. Religion in particular can be a major issue in a relationship, so that information is particularly relevant. Furthermore, it is certainly acceptable and reasonable for a person to reject a potential partner due to their religion. That can be a major component of compatibility, and we should be free to choose or reject our partners for whatever reason. The same isn’t true of one’s employer or one’s parents.

    I did see that you tried to address some of my points in a previous reply (I haven’t been able to read all of the comments unfortunately):

    Overwhelmingly, atheists who have come out about their atheism are glad they did it it, and say that it was the right decision. Living in the closet is hard, and it does real psychological and emotional damage. And it’s not always a simple matter of keeping your mouth shut (although that’s stressful as well): because so much of our society is structured around religion, simply staying silent often isn’t an option. We often get put into situations where we have to lie, or at least deceive, if we want to stay closeted. And coming out is how we push back against anti-atheist bigotry, form communities and political movements, and make things easier on other atheists who want to come out.

    Look at it this way: Would you say about LGB people that their sexual orientation is nobody else’s business, and ask why they should disabuse people of the notion that they’re straight? If not, then why say it about atheists?

    To answer your question first: Yes absolutely. It is no one’s business. Coming out is an entirely personal decision. I am honestly bothered by the implication that it is immoral to remain closeted. I’m trying to find a counter argument, but I’m honestly not sure what I’m countering. I don’t see anything that should ethically compel someone to come out. Ever. Anywhere.

    And your other points don’t seem to be ethical in nature. They are (respectively) personal and political.

    I’ll admit there’s something personal in this for me. I’m generally a very private person, and I’ve chosen to compartmentalize my life. There are many reasons for this, and it doesn’t just apply to my irreligiousity or my sexuality. I simply don’t trust a lot of people and I don’t want to let them into my life. There are many situations where I feel comfortable being open about myself, and a few where I am not. I’ve tried to build a community that is supportive, and I’ll admit that I’m very fortunate to have supportive parents. The only place where I’m closeted is at work. I enjoy my job, but my co-workers are different enough from me that I’ve decided that I would prefer to have no personal relationship with them at all.

    I’ve made this choice consciously after weighing a variety of factors. I don’t think I’m experiencing much in the way of “psychological and emotional damage” from this. There’s some mild anxiety about my co-workers finding out, but I’m much more anxious about a lot of other things. I struggle with a lot of anxieties in my life, but being closeted is pretty low on the list for me. But when I’ve considered coming out, the anxiety that entails is immense and overwhelming. Perhaps it would be better on the other side, but I honestly have a hard time seeing that as the case for me.

    Either way, the opinion of the “overwhelming majority of atheists” here is irrelevant ethically; it is an appeal to popularity. And I am free to choose a path in life that is contrary to the majority here.

    I do agree that coming out can “push back against anti-atheist bigotry”. I just see no reason that this should be required of any one individual atheist. I applaud those who are able to do so, but I will not condemn anyone who feels that they can or should not.

    In some sense it may be good to come out, and in some cases it may be wise. But that doesn’t entail that it is wrong to remain closeted. Ultimately, I think that we should each be free to choose whether coming out is a good thing for us individually.

  32. 34

    I am honestly bothered by the implication that it is immoral to remain closeted. I’m trying to find a counter argument, but I’m honestly not sure what I’m countering.

    praeus @ #33: I’m not sure what you’re countering, either — because I didn’t say that, or imply it, and I have no idea what I said that makes you think I was saying or implying that.

    Yes, I think a case could be made that in some situations, it’s not moral to take money from people who wouldn’t give it to you if they knew you were an atheist. Once parents’ obligations to their children have been fulfilled (although people obviously have different opinions about what those obligations are), adults have the right to not give money to people whose choices they don’t approve of, and that includes parents with their children. (Analogy: If one kid asked their parents for a loan to start a flower shop, and another kid asked for a loan to start a gun shop, I think it would be reasonable for the parents to say Yes to the first and No to the second, based entirely on the fact that they approve of flowers and disapprove of guns.) You might not agree with this principle: I’m not even sure I agree myself, that’s the very question we’re discussing here. But even if you do agree, that wouldn’t mean you’re obligated to come out. It would just mean you’re obligated to not take their money.

    And even if you agree with this principle, that’s not at all the same thing as saying it’s immoral to remain closeted. Nowhere have I said, or implied, that coming out is required, that it is wrong to remain closeted, or that I condemn people who don’t come out. In fact, in my book “Coming Out Atheist: How to Do It, How to Help Each Other, and Why,” I repeatedly state that people have the right to decide for themselves whether to come out, when to come out, and to whom to come out. I repeatedly state that everyone has different circumstances and different personalities, and that coming out isn’t an either/or thing: it’s a continuum, and we all get to decide for ourselves where to be on that continuum. In fact, I have an entire chapter in the book listing some of the reasons people might decide not to come out — and “You just don’t want to” is on that list. Please do not put words in my mouth that I vehemently disagree with.

    Either way, the opinion of the “overwhelming majority of atheists” here is irrelevant ethically; it is an appeal to popularity.

    You misunderstand. Let me clarify. I brought up this fact — the fact that the overwhelming majority of atheists who have come out are glad they did — not to address the ethical issue, but to address the personal and political issues. machintelligence @ #7 asked me why atheists would want to come out, why we would want to disabuse them of the notion that we’re believers. I was answering that question. Reasons for coming out are that it overwhelmingly makes people happier, and that it is politically powerful and makes life better for other atheists. That makes it a good idea and/or a nice thing to do, if you can and want to do it. But it doesn’t make it obligatory. Again: Please do not put words in my mouth that I vehemently disagree with.

  33. 35

    I think this question, while useful to a degree in its current form, would be more useful if it were completely reversed. So instead of ‘is it reasonable to hide your atheism in order to get X?’, imagine it instead as ‘it it reasonable for X to be contingent upon the recipient’s religiosity?’ We could also try it with other demographics substituted in place of religiosity, e.g. sexuality, skin colour and the like. Suddenly, I think most of the issues become extremely clear.

    To give an example, in reply to anbheal @6 we ask ‘is it reasonable to make immigration intake / citizenship contingent upon religiosity (or race or sexuality or…)’ and I think the answer is a resounding NO. The fact that the demand is so unreasonable I think makes the lie in this case reasonable.

  34. 36

    I see this as being more like “the nazi’s pounding at your door asking for Jews” kind of thing than a straight up lie. Parents who use money to manipulate their kids in this way (to get them to conform to their religion or to be not-gay…things that aren’t actually “choices”) is unethical — not to the level of the Nazi-jew thing, of course, but its still an unethical — so for the same reason I feel fine lying to the Nazi’s, I feel fine with people lying about their atheism to their parents, when they suspect their parents are going to do something unethical with that bit of information. Seems pretty straight forward in my book, at least.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *