Take a moment to read his post (it’s not long.)

Here are just two conservative Christian ways of thinking she talks about that reflect unshakable views of the childfree:

The childfree fear responsibility.

She is criticizing a woman’s comment that gave her and her husband’s reasons for not having children, including overpopulation, wanting time to dedicate to each other” to continue having a deep marriage, wanting “the freedom of being able to do what we want, when we want,” and not wanting the “responsibility of how the child’s life could turn out.”

Do the childfree fear responsibility just because they don’t want the responsibility of raising children? Seems to me knowing what responsibilities you want, don’t want and why is actually, well, very responsible.  It is not about fearing “personal failure;” it is having the responsible, mature wherewithal to know what is best for us and what is not.

We are selfish because we have exclusive concern for our own interests.

Just because we don’t have kids means we are only concerned about our interests? Why is it that church just can’t budge off of the idea that procreation is “the” symbolic” selfless act? How is it that the church (and this guy) fail to see the many ways those who have no children give to their families, loved ones, communities and the world? How can it be so blind not to see how much selfishness there can be in the act of parenthood?

There is a third unshakable view related to the world in general. It doesn’t only come from the conservative Christian community, but from other segments of the population as well:

Overpopulation is a myth.

This guy does math to make the point that even with the current 7 billion, there is 9500 square feet for his family of nine, and asks  why isn’t it as obvious to others as it is to her that there is still plenty of room for more people on the planet.   Room, maybe, but survivability of those growing numbers, and the rest of living creatures and things on the planet? Talk about a limited view.

Now there are population”experts” who would agree that population isn’t the problem, but the more I learn from the whole field of experts, population is indeed the problem, and the consumption that goes with it.

As the saying goes, we’ve come a long way baby, but views like these remind me we have  a ways to go to changing the societal views on parenthood truly being a choice.

Childfree Christians: How do you react to this person’s piece? How does the church view the childfree in your experience? How can stubborn negative views be influenced to truly change?

• There were 487 respondents who learned of the survey on SurveyMonkey through various channels on the internet
• 80% were female, and 80% were between the ages of 21-39
• 73% were from the United States
• 75% have parents who adhere to some type of Christian religion
• 70% report not holding any religious beliefs; 29% identify as religious
• 79% report that their religious upbringing did not influence their decision not to have children

In her conclusion, Nicole indicates that the survey numbers indicate that “there is a positive relationship between individuals who are childfree by choice and absence of religious belief, and that atheists within the childfree community significantly outnumber atheists in the general population, at least in Australia and the United States.”

Kudos to Nicole for gathering data on the childfree and religion;  there has been a dire need for research in this area. Previous research has tended to show that those who choose not to have children are not particularly religious, and this survey seems to concur with this thinking.  Nicole takes it further and interestingly finds that most respondents don’t see their religious upbringing as influencing their childfree status.

Two clarifying points occur to me when reading her results:

1. Instead of childfree individuals in general, the survey numbers seem to indicate more specifically that there is a positive relationship between a certain slice of the childfree population–childfree women ages 21-39 in the United States with access to the internet, and absence of religious belief.

2.  The question, “Do you currently hold any religious beliefs?” does not automatically mean respondents would identify themselves as atheists.  Saying those who “do not belong to any religion” would also not automatically mean they would say they are atheists. I would like to have seen Question 4, “Please state your parents religion.” asked of respondents as well, so that they could self-report on this, and that the choice of  “atheist” instead of “no religion” be used instead on both questions.

This survey brought to mind what I learned about this when interviewing couples for Families of Two.  The age ranges of the couples at the time was between mid-twenties and mid-sixties, and most indicated they did not consider themselves particularly religious but a small minority said they considered themselves atheists.  Many of them did not belong to a church, or did not attend church regularly, but did hold Christian beliefs.

Makes me ponder the hypothesis, that the trend of childfree atheists has increased with Gen X and Y, when you compare to the generation before them. Some do believe there is a rise in atheism in general these days, in part due to the destructive effects we see resulting from fundamentalist religious fanaticism. As Richard Dawkins, says in The God Delusion, religion has consistently been a divisive and oppressive force in the world, and that sure is the case today.

What do you think–are the childfree more likely to be atheist? Or do more march to their own spiritual drum?

It lays out a provocative theory about this problem and how to solve it:

The documentary’s educational premise revolves around the idea that ”Overpopulation is merely a symptom of an even larger problem – a “domination system” that for most of human history has glorified the domination of man over nature, man over child and man over woman. To break this pattern, the film demonstrates that we must change our conquering mindset into a nurturing one. And the first step is to raise the status of women worldwide.”

This premise sure seems to advocate taking on the social organization that has dominated just about every global society for hundreds of years - patriarchy.  That is one tall order. However, efforts to try and raise the status of women globally is a way to begin to chink away at the patriarchal armor.

The theories of Hans Rosling, Professor of International Health at Karolinska Institute and co-founder and chairman of the Gapminder Foundation, parallel the idea of raising women’s status to deal with the world’s escalating population– he advocates that ”only by raising the living standards of the poorest can we check population growth.”

And part of raising living standards is access to education.  As the documentary indicates, when women have more education, they have fewer children. In conjunction with education in general, other experts say that contraceptive education and access in poorer countries is they key to curbing the rapidly growing global population.

According to a recent United Nations report, the world’s population forecast is just above 9 billion by the year 2050. With numbers like this, I don’t see how anyone can believe there isn’t a population problem.

Hania Zlotnik, director of the U.N.’s population division, has indicated that to solve this problem, the world’s fastest-growing countries, and the wealthy Western nations that help to finance their development, “face a choice about whether to renew their emphasis on programs that encourage family planning” (I am sure StopAtTwo’s John Taves would advocate including the “stop at two” rule be part of these programs!).

Celia Dugger and Justin Gillis of the New York Times write that these programs were a major focus of development policy in the 1970s and 1980s, but they have since stagnated in many countries, because they have gotten ”caught up in ideological battles over abortion, sex education and the role of women in society.”

Seems this new documentary is an effort to educate society that it’s high time to move past ideological battles and have the wherewith-all to begin to take on the even larger “domination problem.” 

What do you think? Is this the strategy, and if so, is it globally possible to shift away from a “man domination” model?

They may do some of what a lot of people do–have a tree, decorate, gather with and give gifts to family and loved ones, but plenty would say they don’t celebrate the holiday first and foremost as the birthday of Jesus.  Why? Because they are atheist or agnostic. 

What do we know about the numbers of childfree atheists and agnostics? 

There sure is a lack of hard statistics here.  One of the few surveys ever formally done happened over 30 years ago. The National Alliance of Non-Parents (which turned to the National Alliance for Optional Parenthood) conducted a survey of a random sample of their members, and of the 334 who responded, the mean age was 31, and 49% reported they were either atheist or agnostic. That was a sizable percentage. But what we don’t know is if this can be reasonably extrapolated to the percentages of the childfree population as a whole at that time. 

I have not found many other sound studies that with look at childfree and religious affiliation, if any. Prior to 2000 there were some trend studies that indicated the childfree “tended” to be less religious, but that does not tell us much.  However, these day I do notice a growing amount of web action on childfree atheist and agnostic topics and sites.  

One interesting site is ”Selfish Heathens” which is designed for liberal childfree atheists and agnostics.  You see more out there about atheism as a potential movement in our society. Last summer ABC did a provocative piece on whether atheism is a growing positive force in America. But are those with no children by choice more likely to be atheist or agnostic? 

I can only tell you what I have seen over ten years engaging with hundreds of childfree. I have encountered more childfree that consider themselves christian, but not necessarily practicing christians. For example, they don’t necessarily go to church regularly or on Christmas, but have christian beliefs. The second most include people who subscribe to other major religions including judiasm, hinduism and buddhism. 

Then I would say I encounter serious practicing christians and their opposite–people who describe themselves as nonreligious–atheist or agnostic. Just because I have not run into more atheist or agnostics does not mean they have not been there all along–maybe they are just becoming more vocal about their beliefs in this regard. Or maybe this just means I am talking to more of them these days! 

In any case, they are the ones that will do Christmas as just another day they get off as part of our society’s christian-oriented calendar. 

Childfree reading this, who are willing to share, how would you describe your religion, spirituality, or the like? 

The October question: Look to your right in the On-the-Ground Question section and write in!