Losing Bill Buckley's religion

From observation of other families, corroborated by the experience of the Buckley tadpole, I would also suggest: booze and the transmission of faith don't mix very well. I think ethyl alcohol stops religious osmosis dead.

Anyway, why the hell is anybody feeling sorry for Christo Buckley? He will be lauded by all the right sort of people for the next several years as having "matured"...the non-electoral equivalent of having "grown in office".

You can't fake faith.

You can fake religion, whether Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc., but you can't fake faith.

You can fool yourself into thinking you have faith, but you're just fooling yourself.

You can think you have faith when all you have is religion.

You can pass religion on to your kids or siblings or friends, but you can't pass on faith.

You can't fake faith. It's like trying to hide from God.

Some have it, some don't. Some get it, some don't.

Lord, have mercy.

Dear Rod -

That is eloquently written, and very moving.

I lost faith completely after the murder of my wife and unborn daughter. I've still not found it again, and very much doubt that I will.

I still lament the loss.

But I cannot believe if I don't believe. That's a difficult position for someone born and raised Catholic.

I think some people, probably because of their personality type or temperament, are more predisposed to religion, while others are more prone to pessimism and doubt. It's just the way it is. I recently found that my personality type, INTJ, is possessed by less than one percent of the population. And the description explains a lot of the way I am--highly motivated by logic, prone to inward thinking, and is uncomfortable with answers that are not efficient, provable, or definitive etc...

But at any rate, I think I went through a time period of about seven years (18-25) where I actively doubted the existence of God altogether, and even more so an afterlife. It had nothing to do with rejecting or rebelling against any of the tenets of my faith--in most respects, I completely agreed with them. I just wasn't sure if the whole thing had any basis in reality, though I most certainly wanted it to. So--this tension made it extremely difficult for me. I've also always had a difficult time feeling the sort of connection to God that I think many more "sanguine" people (especially women) seem to experience in prayer.

To some extent, I've made peace with all of these thoughts and feelings, mainly through focusing on more "concrete" activities and aspects of my life--realizing that, perhaps, reason isn't the all consuming god that somehow I had been convinced (against my will) that it was. I'll also add that my legal training has taught me to analyze problems and issues in a way that I can detach myself a little bit, and in the process realize that others' ideas perhaps don't have all the merit they purport to have.

I hope that your son, and any kids I have, don't have that same trait. I suppose in some respect it is a test that can bring about holiness or the best in us, but it sure is not pleasant. (I might add, parenthetically, that being disposed in the way I am isn't exactly the most attractive thing to women, either):)

I don't know if you have any particular religion, K Street,

I do. The one you left or lost a couple years ago.

but if you do, I'm surprised to read these words coming from you. A man's soul is the most precious thing he has.

A truism; I should have put the sarcasm alert on my earlier posting (seems to be often with me). But even an orthodox Catholic can admit that one can no more be sure of the true state of the soul who kept up years of Sunday morning appearances at the Church of St. Thomas More on E. 89th St. versus the state of grace in the son who prefers to spend the same timeslot in a mimosa-drenched haze brunching at Sarabeth's a few blocks away. Appearances are appearances and truth is truth; I don't know where Bill Buckley is now, and neither do you. And Christo could yet make it to heaven before all of us. Augustine had a bastard son too, even if he was a wittier writer.

I can't understand how any person of faith can fail to pity another soul who has lost the gift of faith, or who never had it.

Sure I pity Christo. But I'm a finite being with a finite number of neurons and a finite number of sentiments I can think in any given day. I have enough on my own plate with my own conscience, and teaching the faith to my daughters, to have more than a few moments to worry about a particular rich man and a general eye of a needle. Particularly when that rich man seems to be quite happy with the adulation he is getting in this world. As someone once said, amen I say to you, he already has his reward. I will expend much more pity-time for those many more people who have lost their faith, or cannot get it, because they have been beaten down too much by life and circumstance, and cannot see religion as anything more than a rich person's hobby.

Why do you grieve for someone who has lost his faith? Just because someone has rejected religion does not mean that their lives are devoid of meaning, beauty, and depth. Losing one's faith is not always a negative experience.

Who said they were? Not me. Atheists are often the most interesting people in the room.

But I would say that losing God is always an objectively negative experience, because it is to live in untruth. Besides which, to cut oneself off, or to be cut off, from one's Creator and the source of Life is a terrible fate -- especially because it could lead to the loss of one's soul for eternity. Ours is a merciful God, and I trust that He, in his infinite love, will take pity on people who have had their faith wrenched from them by circumstances beyond their control, or who, through no fault of their own, never had a real opportunity to know and to love their Creator. I don't desire to see anyone suffer, either in this life or the next, from the loss of God, which, as a believing Christian, is the most terrible thing I can imagine happening to a human soul, whether Christian or not.

I don't know where Bill Buckley is now, and neither do you.

True. That's why I said I hope he can pray for us all. My faith is not strong. I need his prayers. Anybody's prayers.

I do sometimes wonder if certain types are more naturally religious than others.

I was raised in a family that was at least apparently religious. Not overtly, but we did go to church every Sunday, at least. Me? I never was, though I can also say that I probably thought, read and maybe even agonized over religion as a child more than my more, well, casually and ok with that siblings and parents did.

On the Meyers-Briggs scale, INTP, which is apparently a pretty small hunk of humanity as well. We're apparently 1% of the population.

Here is a question, though. Or a few. Probably fits the type above.

Since you think that it is the worst thing that could happen (and I'm not objecting. If I thought a choice was going to land my child into an eternity of horrific suffering, I'd probably go with that too), if you could do nothing about the unbelief, would you rather have an honest unbeliever as a son (assuming basically ethical lifestyle), or a closet unbeliever who sits by you at the pew, whom even you don't know doesn't believe?

In short, if you can't do anything about it, would you choose comfort or his personal integrity? And, of course, is there some merit in sitting there even if it doesn't lead to his future belief?

Would you prefer honest unbelievers or closet cultural Christians/actual atheists?

Is it objectively better to believe in any God than the "actual" God? Is it better to believe in a possibly false God than admit uncertainty?

We all believe in a false God, no one is capable of knowing God in His fullness, so none of us actually believe in the "actual" God. But uncertainty is not the opposite of, or enemy of, faith. Apathy is the opposite of faith. To be uncertain, or to have doubt, is merely the prerequisite for faith and growth, the best any of us can do when it comes to God is to know Him a little better today than we did yesterday, and to know that compared to the infinity that is God, we all know nothing of Him, even, or especially, those that are most certain of their knowledge of Him.

I would also like to point out that it is impossible for a finite human to lose their faith, we can only change our faith, switch from one faith to another, not lose faith entirely. The only question we can answer is "Who (or what) will you have faith in?". We cannot live without faith, without some mythology to give order and meaning to our lives. Any who claim to not have faith are merely deceiving themselves.

I'm with you on this one, K Man. I feel a lot more sorry for Bill, who whether in heaven or purgatory is right now praying for his son, than I do for Christopher.

All we can do is pray and set an example for our kids. The rest is up to them and God. They are God's kids more than they are ours and He loves them even more than we do.

Angie: "Losing one's faith is not always a negative experience."

Despite a possible interpretation of what Max said, Angie, losing one's faith in an Abrahamic God is losing one's reason for being. A life post faith, with "meaning, beauty, and depth" is a sad non sequitur to me.

Cleveland wrote: "Despite a possible interpretation of what Max said, Angie, losing one's faith in an Abrahamic God is losing one's reason for being."

What do you mean by that? And why do you say that "losing one's faith in an Abrahamic God is losing one's reason for being?" I enjoy my life.

It is overwhelmingly likely that there aren't any Gods.

Your basis for this remark is ...? Are you actually claiming that your lack of any experience of the divine trumps the billions of people who claim such an experience? They are all, every last one, wrong, and you are right? I find that to be remarkably arrogant.

Larry wrote: "Your basis for this remark is ...?"

No event is known to have been caused by a God, and trillions of events are known to have occurred. Similarly, no event is known to have been caused by a Tooth Fairy or a vampire. And it is very likely that there aren't any Tooth Fairies or vampires.

"Are you actually claiming that your lack of any experience of the divine trumps the billions of people who claim such an experience?"

That billions believe in X is irrelevant to whether the belief is warranted. Billions believe in all sorts of nonsense. Billions have believed that the sun revolves around the earth. Thus, that billions believe that some Gods exist is irrelevant to whether it's likely that any Gods exist.

"They are all, every last one, wrong, and you are right?"

Yes. I don't know for certain that they are wrong. But they probably are.

"I find that to be remarkably arrogant."

Whether it is arrogant is irrelevant to whether the claim is warranted.

I agree with Larry that one doesn't lose "faith". After all, one has to believe in some non-objective and unprovable set of axioms to get by. I would argue, however, that one needn't posit a 'God' of the Abrahamic law-giving sort in which to imbue with such faith. In other faith 'structures' the term 'God' takes on a very different cast.

Larry said: “This is merely your prejudice restated as a fact.”

What do you mean? Why do you say that?

“Is there any possible event, even someone raising from the dead, that you would accept as being God initiated?”

Sure. For example, if I saw a many examples of a being waving its hand a causing a universe to exist, that would be grounds for inferring that the being caused the known universe to exist.
I haven’t experienced anything remotely similar to an intelligent super-being that could cause a universe to exist. I also haven’t experienced any vampires or leprechauns. For example, I haven't seen any leprechauns.

“I said nothing about belief, I said experience, there's a difference.”

What “experience” are you referring to?

I'm not sure I'm going to be able to get into this discussion. So, put it this way: If it were likely that no Gods exist, then it would, prima facie, be good for one to believe that no Gods exist.

Now we know why WFB always said that his one regret was that he didn't have more children.

If the westboro baptist church is correct, then it wont matter how much you really believed in your loyalty oathes, it was still the incorrect faith. Afterall, the gate is narrow and few will make it.
But this really isnt about the soul; its about conflating faith with morals and values.

Dont portend that profession of faith is uniformity in belief. The BTK killer was a church elder in good standing.
Pity those living their life as if its a zero-sum game, not those who do not believe in a personal god.

Believers claim that secularists dont understand them. I would say the opposite is also true. At least Chris Buckley is being honest.
Religious faith is not the only motivator of good or the great deterence to crime as most would like to think it is.

Thanks, Rod, for sharing this and for being so open to us. To have faith is the greatest possible gift one can receive in life.

About a month ago I saw Christopher Buckley on Book TV (C-Span 2 on weekends). I've never met him in person. But in this interview, which was taped this summer or early fall discussing his latest work, he seemed so burdened. I'm sorry to hear that he's struggling.

Yes, as I noted here some 10 days or so ago, I was disappointed by Christopher Buckley's endorsement of Obama. But I was not surprised. Recent history teaches us that it can be tough for the children of powerful and/or celebrated people in the political world. Privileged in one sense, but also tough because you're expected to share the views and philosophy of a famous parent. I'm guessing that the younger Buckley is relieved to be able to throw off the burden of being his father's son ... and just be himself, politically and in other ways. Wish him well.

When our daughter was growing up we educated her to two things: Love God and love your neighbor.

Seems to have worked out well. Subjecting everything to the test of how it stacks up against those two commandments is a remarkably elegant way to achieve clarity.

Larry, I've seen your posts in other threads and I've been meaning to comment that I like your writing. I happen to agree with Steve, but I've still enjoyed your writing.

I also agree with Don Altabello that argument about God is much less interesting than how faith or lack of it within a family effects that person's acceptance by their family members. I say this because many agnostics and atheists have not told their family because it is such a touchy issue.

Science can never be accountable because it brings results, its miracles are repeatable. What people choose to do with them is another matter, but science, in and of itself, is the one pure thing in the universe, before which God prostrates himself and in whose presence the religious are forced to either submit or shout, "Pay no attention to the Man Behind the Curtain!" and live with their lies and superstitions and try to force others to accept those lies as truth.

quote: "Science can never be accountable because it brings results, its miracles are repeatable. What people choose to do with them is another matter, but science, in and of itself, is the one pure thing in the universe, before which God prostrates himself and in whose presence the religious are forced to either submit or shout, "Pay no attention to the Man Behind the Curtain!" and live with their lies and superstitions and try to force others to accept those lies as truth."

By definition miracles are things outside of or counter to the natural order. Science only deals with the natural world. So there are no scientific miracles.
I only have to laugh at your talk about the lies and superstition of religion. Positivism and scientism have shown themselves to be nothing but lies. Anyone who thinks science can explain everything or that it will necessarily lead to a better world is simply ignorant (and perhaps willfully so) about the role of science in all the horrors of the twentieth century.
I find it rather ironic that atheist and non-religious people who condemn religion as "superstitious" cling to blatantly false ideas such as Positivism or even the notion that objective morality exist in a world without God. The only logical form of atheism is nihilistic hedonism. The rest is rank superstition in my book.

rr

My own mother also became a Catholic in her late 30s and denounced it later on. When she was dying she asked me if I thought she would go to heaven. I told her yes. If there is a heaven no one with any sense of humor or intellect or justice would have rejected her.

Per your children; My sister and I both had religion smother our upbringing, to one extent or another. My sister is a devout and spiritual agnostic who seems incapable of accepting orthodox religions. She thinks my faith is more like poetic superstition. In either case, that is how many people define a secularist. My question is why define it at all unless the dialog is within ourselves?

Rawlins Gilliland, in response to your 9:17 PM post.

I think people evangelize their choices because it helps them validate that they are correct. I must have made the right choice because someone else did too. Basically it helps them quiet nagging doubts.

Conversely really aggressive opposition to an alternate choice can also be the result of doubts that person has.

quote: "But rr hyperventilates right into the abyss and I don't think I'll follow him/her there. There is incredible overreach in rr's post, most gratuitously when he claims to know what my position on 'objective' ethics is."

I never claimed to know anything about your position on ethics. I wasn't even talking about you specifically in my last comment. I was simply commenting in general on how I find Positivism to be obviously false and any kind of atheistic moral claims to be superstition. If there is no God, there is no morality or any reason to care about quaint notions of "right" and "wrong" any more than there is any reason to pray.
It's not a matter of emotion or rhetoric or whatever on my part. I honestly believe that the only logical response to a world without God is nihilistic hedonism. I don't find atheism puzzling. I went through a phase of reading a lot of Nietzsche and came somewhat near to becoming an atheist. I just don't get non-religious people who are naive enough to place their faith in science to explain everything or man's problems as well as those who think that any kind of meaningful , objective morality can exist without God.

rr

rr

"Science can never be accountable because it brings results, its miracles are repeatable. What people choose to do with them is another matter, but science, in and of itself, is the one pure thing in the universe, before which God prostrates himself..."

How infinitely small one's univise is when that in which one believes is oneself.

The fool is not the man with his head in the heavens. The fool is the man who tries to get the heavens in to his head.

Don Altabello
October 26, 2008 6:04 PM
-"...Ironic that you bring up "zero sum game" with regard to living one's life and then in the same sentence talk about religion/disbelief and the effect on crime. I thought we weren't supposed to be approaching life in strictly consequentialist terms?"

First of all, its not in the same sentence.
But whats ironic about it? Are you claiming that disbelief, by default, makes one live life in a zero-sum game?

In this post, Rod is scared that one of his kids seems like an atheist/agnostic while the other talks openly and freely about god.
Theres nothing wrong with your children following you in your faith tradition, but it wont mean a hill of beans if they are living like the BTK killer- a zero-sum game. In regards to consequentialist terms, I would predict that a majority of the faithless would agree there are consequences to being a serial killer.
Likewise, the members of the westboro baptist church have faith, although I assume you would consider them rather loutish, yet one loutish church member is another sect's true believer. Mr. Altabello, you maybe just as given over to jeopardizing your eternal soul as the faithless are. So, I'm reposting what you deftly avoided in my 1st post- DONT PORTEND THAT PROFESSION OF FAITH IS UNIFORMITY IN BELIEF.

But there is no reason to care about morality. Animals certainly don't.

Are you sure about that? Can all the behavior of pet dogs and elephants and cetaceans be described as that of creatures that have no care about morality? Is it all just genetically-programmed survival instinct?

'If that's how it is, then how can we even talk of "morality"? You say that if there's no afterlife, we are obligated to help the least among us. But why? Why should we help the unfit? And by whom are we obligated?'

You might as well say "how can we even talk of 'sleep?'" I believe (and there is scientific evidence for this) that morality is an evolutionary trait that allowed humans to flourish and eventually dominate the earth.

Sleep is a biological necessity. I wish I didn't have to sleep, but there's no escaping biology. While some people don't need much sleep, most of us fall in the fat part of the bell curve and need 7-9 hours per night. Likewise, morality and altruism also have a bell curve. There are some people on the far end of the bell curve of morality - on the bad side are sociopaths who care only about themselves, on the good side are the Mother Theresas of the world. Most of us are in the middle - we give to the church or local charities or to the homeless guy in the street, but very few of us are willing to drop everything and move to India.

(Not just biology, but culture too. Cultures evolve just like people and, for better or worse, there is reason some cultures dominate others. Once upon a time Mayan culture dominated Central America. IMO its decline has less to do with God's will than the fact that they didn't know anything about steel. And in fairness to believers, I do think the missionaries' message of a loving God was an attractive idea to many natives.)

When you think of doing something immoral like, say, stealing, is the inner guilt you feel really just a fear of God's authority? When I feel guilty about something, it's because of how I (mis)treated someone else, not because I'm worried the big guy in the sky is watching. I feel it biologically in the same way I feel sleepy.

As a child, like all children, I was selfish and didn't think or feel these things. But as I matured I discovered that altruism could actually help me succeed in the world (defined as being happier, not just accumulating wealth), much as I found that I a good night's sleep does wonders.

Oh no, not that "science vs. religion" thing again. Science and religion are not necessarily opposed, they deal with different things. Science is based on the observable universe and things that can be tested, measured, proven. Religion is not. It's not that as a Christian I don't find empirical evidence for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity, it just can't be proven scientifically. But neither can many other things, like what is love or the meaning of life. However, there have been a number of scientists that believe in God or at least some supreme intelligent force above and beyond the universe. Francis Collins, the guy who mapped the human genome, comes to mind, as does Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendl, and a number of others. Joseph Priestly was a clergyman. Isaac Newton was apparently not an orthodox Christian but believed in God. Einstein sometimes talked like he believed in God but not religion.

Now as to the original purpose to this thread, of course if your kids get away from your most cherished beliefs you are going to be upset. Especially if you are a believer and you are afraid that their rejecting your religion means they have rejected God and will go to hell. This is not necessarily true, as God knows whose heart is right with him. It could be that an atheist who lives a good and honest and valuable life is closer to God than a self righteous pompous relgious hypocrite.

Like many middle-aged parents, I have an adult child who does not go to church and who says she does not like organized religion and does not see the need for it. Lots of people go through a phase like this in their life so I try not to worry about it. Maybe I should be more like St. Monica and cry and wring my hands over my kid but I think it is up to God not me. Besides, I think God is bigger than we are and if we get to heaven, we will surprised by three things; one, that we are there, two, by who is there, and three, by who is not there.

I think Christo Buckley is trying to get out of the shadow of his famous dad and he has to work this out for himself. I think of Ron Reagan for example, who is pretty much opposite of everything his dad stood for (he's an atheist and a liberal) but it is very obvious he loved his dad very much. I find him more reflective and thoughtful than Mike Reagan, who just seems like almost a caricature of the right wing religious Republican, not that I doubt his sincerity and his also obvious love for his dad.

I think it's hard to be the child of a famous person or a person of note. I guess that's the premise of Oliver Stone's movie "W".

I did everything hild did but it didn't "work" in my daughter's case. (My other daughter does go to church). I am sure it helps to have a solid formation in faith but we often see people who did everything right and the kid still rejects their faith. I mean, Marilyn Manson went to Christian school!

If I had $10 for every faithful orthodox Catholic of my acquaitence who took their kids to CCD/sent them to Catholic school/homeschooled them, prayed together as a family, did works of charity as a family, found them like minded faithful friends, etc., etc., but their adult kids no longer practice the faith, I could retire and never work a day in my life again!

rr
October 26, 2008 10:51 PM
I honestly believe that the only logical response to a world without God is nihilistic hedonism.

Suppose that a person's greatest pleasure - because of nature or nurture - was not nihilistic hedonism, but rather altruism?

Then would it not be true - for that person - that altruism would be the only logical response for that person.

rr, perhaps it is possible that not everyone, in the absence of an overriding ontological structure, would choose hedonism. Perhaps some people simply enjoy helping other people. Perhaps some people prefer kindness to cruelty.

I think a believer's reaction to unchurched or atheistic children really is a matter of faith: faith that God knows what He is about, faith that adult children will find their own way, which may not come with labels that please their parents (in most cases the children will move heaven and earth to be certain that whatever labels exist will not please their parents....), whatever.

We all of us, professed theists and professed atheists, worship false gods, in that human intelligence and spirit are not, cannot be, big enough to take in the Reality, whatever you wish to call that Reality. God. Unified Field Theory. It has a thousand names, and all of them are wrong. Maybe the first step to sanity is to simply recognize this very simple and obvious fact.

Should it be my goal that my children worship the very same false god, the very same inadequate formulation, that pleases me? Why? What good would that do? Validate my own ideas? But is that really the best thing for my further development, to "validate" my present mistakes?

Rod has gone from Something (I wasn't around then) to Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy, and he isn't even 50 yet. What's the next stop on this train line? Even he doesn't know.

If you think we're making this whole thing (God, the observable laws of the physical universe, whatever you believe in) up in our heads, I think there's a name for that, which I have forgotten. Something about Bishop Berkeley and trees falling unheard in the forest. I think that's an inadequate formulation, but since my own formulation is also inadequate, I'm not going to put too much energy into the inadequacy of yours.

It's not about the words we use to describe it.

quote: "Suppose that a person's greatest pleasure - because of nature or nurture - was not nihilistic hedonism, but rather altruism?"

MargaretE's 7:39 a.m. comments about atheism expressed things far better than I have so far.

As for the question of enjoying altruism, yes, if one finds altruism pleasurable then by all means it would be logical to act altruistically. After all, people's tastes vary tremendously with respect to pleasure. But without God moral obligations simply do not exist. So there is no moral obligation to act altruistically i.e. "one ought to give to the poor" and the like.

I don't think that nihilistic hedonism means that one will go around murdering, stealing, and lying and such. After all, it is in people's self-interests to live in a safe, well-ordered community. And many people (myself included) have no inclination towards these kinds of behavior in the first place. But morality and moral obligations? Forget it. At best they are social constructs to be followed or discarded as one sees fit. As MargaretE asked "by whom are we obligated?" Without God the only answer I see is nobody.

rr

rr
October 27, 2008 6:53 AM
"... there is no reason to care about morality. Animals certainly don't."

Then how do we explain antelope on the savannah who, when spotting a leopard or lion in the tall grass will put itself in-between the herd and the predator giving a warning call, all the while increasing its own chances of being caught and eaten. Why would an antelope do such a thing? b/c antelopes would become extinct real fast.
Animals certainly do care.

quote: "Why would an antelope do such a thing? b/c antelopes would become extinct real fast. Animals certainly do care."

This kind of behavior helps ensure the survival of the species. But it's not about morality per se. After all, some animals will eat members of the same species. Survival is the main issue for animals, not morality.

rr

rr
October 27, 2008 2:10 PM
"This kind of behavior helps ensure the survival of the species. But it's not about morality per se. After all, some animals will eat members of the same species. Survival is the main issue for animals"

But, rr, you said animals dont care. As far as I know, antelopes do not eat other antelopes. The point is they rely on each other, even if that means if one of them has to endanger itself. If they all ran from any responsibility to the herd, once again, antelopes would be finished. So you can definately look at morality as from the ground up.
Concerning survival of the fittest, natural selection is not always about individual selection, you also have to factor in group selection.

Max Schadenfreude
October 27, 2008 2:22 PM
"I can't stop laughing!"

Nova recently did a piece on a field biologist studying baboon troops. He related on one troop he had studied for quite sometime. It was your atypical, nasty hierarchal troop. But then something happened, the troop ran into a garbage dump with tuberculosis infected meat. Of course, the abusive, dominate males horded most of the food. All of the aggressive males died; and the whole dynamic of the group changed. Males on the bottom of the peking order were now in charge, but they shared food and didnt engage in the same-old same-old games of dumping on females or getting rid of a rival's offspring. Any new males who joined the group had to either adapt to the new setting or be chased off.

So, if you wanna laugh at me, max, go ahead, but to be fair you should also laugh at rr's post

This post hits home with me from the point of view of the children. I was that kid that thought deeply about spiritual issues, but found much of what I was told in church to be a little hard to swallow whole. Much of it was great, but there was a lot that just didn't compute. I tried really hard at certain points in my life. Even becoming one of those unbearable "witnessing" types in high school. (I've seldom felt further from God than I did near the end of that time.) By mid-way through college, I didn't know where my spiritual life was headed, but I knew I would walk a different path than my parents.

One of the hardest things I've ever done in my life was to tell my parents that I wasn't going to continue in the church they had raised me in. (Protestant fundamentalist.) I knew my father, like Radical Catholic Mom, would consider himself a failure as a parent and that both he and my mother would fear for my soul. I also knew the shame they would feel among their friends and the (unspoken) pity they would endure at church. I loved them, I loved many -- though not all -- aspects of my religious upbringing. I loved the people at our church. But I ultimately had to be honest. It was heart-wrenching for me to disappoint them.

But like Max S., that honesty was the barrier I needed to cross to find my own true way to God. My journey has been winding and still continues. But it feels authentic and joyful. My husband and I are raising our children in the Religious Society of Friends, where I (more so than Hubby, I'd say) felt spiritually at home nearly the instant I walked through the door. I would be gratified if my children remained Quakers as adults, but I would be pleased to see them follow whatever path feeds them spiritually and leads them closer to the Light that shines in the darkness. I would only be sad to see them in the darkness without a Light: plagued by despair or behaving in ways that are hurtful to themselves or others. I hope that regardless of the spiritual path they choose, they will look upon their Quaker upbringing as something positive, rather than something negative. With the benefit of some time, age, and distance, that's how I feel about my own Christian upbringing. The underlying values of love, faith, and integrity have never left me.

It was your atypical, nasty hierarchal troop. But then something happened, the troop ran into a garbage dump with tuberculosis infected meat. Of course, the abusive, dominate males horded most of the food.

It sounds like all we need to do is to arrange for a few truckloads of bad meat to be sent to Washington, Moscow, Peking, etc. to turn this world into a heaven!

Alicia: "I think people who were raised without any religion are missing something, no matter how nice those people are, I think they've missed out on one of the most important experiences you can have in life."

I read in a parenting magazine about atheist and agnostic parents raising their kids in a religion in order to give them the option of making up their own minds in the future. One was even quoted as saying "How can they reject religion properly if they don't understand it?"

I really wondered about this. Basically I'm an agnostic and raising my kids in a religion would inevitably require me to either lie, or admit that they didn't believe. Since children are really good at detecting hypocrisy it would make the whole exercise pointless.

Oh, I'm laughing a many posts.

Eddie, My prayers for you.

I finally just read the actual NYT magazine interview with Christo Buckley. I enjoy his novels – they're hilarious and fun – but I agree with his own take that he's not a political thinker... or "even much of a thinker." He doesn't seem to ponder the big questions as deeply as his dad did, and I definitely don't see the same sort of humility, or love of humanity, that permeated so much of the elder Buckley's writings. Christo seems to be all about the clever quip and the satirical jab, and he does it very well, but that seems to be the extent of his vision. WFB had a great intellect AND a great heart. I find it ironic that Christo says his father "didn't get" religion. From what I can gather of both men, it seems to be the son who doesn't get it.