Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
America, One Nation Under No God?
The number of secular Americans is rising faster than any other religious group. But faith will continue to influence politics
In recent years, non-religious Americans have won a modicum of public acknowledgment. Not long ago, politicians insulted them with impunity or at best simply overlooked them. But the heightened public religious fervour of the Bush years led the country's infidels to organise as never before, turning atheist authors like Sam Harris into celebrities and opening lobbying offices in Washington, DC, just like religious interest groups do.
Politicians have responded. In his inaugural address, Barack Obama - doubtlessly realising that secularists constitute a big part of his base - described America as a "nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus ... and non-believers." Even Mitt Romney came to express second thoughts about leaving atheists and agnostics out of his high-profile campaign speech on faith. The United States is not Europe - it will likely be a long time before we have a publicly agnostic president - but it is becoming more tolerant of the godless.
It has to be: no religious group in the United States is growing as fast as those who profess no religion at all. The latest American Religious Identification Survey, which Trinity College published last week, shows that the number of non-religious Americans has nearly doubled since 1990, while the number of people who specifically self-identity as atheists or agnostics has more than tripled. An astonishing 30% of married Americans weren't wed in religious ceremonies, and 27% don't expect to have religious funerals. This suggests whole swaths of the culture are becoming secular, since one can assume that non-believers in religious families often acquiesce to traditional marriage rites and expect to be prayed over when they're dead.
The irony, though, is that even as the country becomes more secular, American politics are likely to remain shot through with aggressive piety. What we're seeing is not a northern European-style mellowing, but an increasing polarisation. In his recent book Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment, the sociologist Phil Zuckerman described the secularised countries of Scandinavia as places where religion is regarded with "benign indifference". There's consensus instead of culture war. That's not what's happening in the United States. Instead, the centre is falling out.
According to the American Religious Identification Survey, Christianity is losing ground in the United States, but evangelical Christianity is not. Just over a third of Americans are still born-again. Meanwhile, the mainline churches, beacons of progressive, rationalistic faith - the kind that could potentially act as a bridge between religious and non-religious Americans - are shrinking. "These trends ... suggest a movement towards more conservative beliefs and particularly to a more 'evangelical' outlook among Christians," write the report's authors.
In some ways, there's a symbiotic relationship between evangelicals and secularists. The religious right emerged in response to a widespread sense of cultural grievance stemming from the social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s. Today's newly organised atheists and agnostics were mobilised by the theocratic bombast of Bush-era Republicans. More than ever, one's religion is tied up with one's political choices rather than family history.
That means faith won't fade into the background. If European secularism is defined by disinterest in organised religion, American secularism is largely defined by opposition to it. Thus non-believers in the United States are increasingly becoming an organised interest group, demanding their share of civic respect. The more they want to escape organised religion, the less they can ignore it.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

120 Comments so far
Show AllPJD, don't waste your breath with this group of posters, the scales are yet to fall from their eyes.
I feel you 100% Stephen. I am sure that if was truly as cold and calculating as religious people think atheist are, I would do exactly the same. And as ludicrous as this sounds, it is out of compassion. I actually care. Wow look at that, an atheist who cares, when it would be much easier to let the children be children and play.
Cheers
Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan are all "One nation under God".
Religion should be a recognized mental health disease.
There is no Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Yalweh, Jesus, Buddah or Mohammed, nor an 8 armed talking elephant wearing ugly clothes....or whatever the hell that thing is. These are just false idols put in place by powerful men in order to control the masses and enrich themselves.
That voice you hear in you head is just YOU...not god nor the neighbours dog. Seek medical help. Quickly.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Oh ...except for Xenu...Tom Cruise says so, so it cant be wrong...nahoo, nanoo.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Ah - there is sanity out there after all! But very little of it - too many people who think mythology (important to the mental health of most humans) is REAL. Dreams are real too - but how many people actually think they are secret messages from aliens? The problem seems to be with having different words for mythology - if it is someone else's belief, but each person gets to claim that THEIR belief is 'religion' - as if that is different from any other kind of fantasy!
Stop calling it 'religion' - IT IS MYTHOLOGY. Deal with it.
Actually, if you knew anything about Buddhism, then you would know that even the Buddha taught that there is Buddha.
Buddhism is essentially athiestic itself. Just the four noble truths regarding the properties of consciousness and the eightfold path to transcend the suffering that is inextricably tied to consciousness. That is all the Buddha taught.
And far from a mental disease, it has been the most effective theraputic modality for 2500 years.
It you bitter, scowling, Madelenine Murray O'Hare athiest-types that need psychotherapy.
---USAn---
Yeah, except who the fuck is Buddha to say anything to me? Spirituality is where grown men go to play with themselves. Real life is hard, cruel, and very scary for cowards, even for the western 400+ lb overfed "human". To be realistic that you are going to die, and there is no answer to "what does it all mean?" leaves pretty much 99% of humans with nothing but paralyzing fear. Consider this: If humans ever make it to the next stage of evolution, people like Albert Einstein will probably be as relevant as the guy who discovered fire. Rise up from all fours and walk upright. Stop taking other men's opinions as the answer to the question above and have the courage to MAKE and answer.
And by the way, let me guess you were buddha's right hand man right? By shouting so loud you, you are voiceless....
"Yeah, except who the fuck is Buddha to say anything to me?" Spirituality is where grown men go to play with themselves.
Let me guess, ethics and morality are also where grown men go to play with themselves, and all of life can be, and is already being explained by, rationalism and darwinism?
Try to be more clear rfloh...
You sort of lost me here. Ethics and morality require many grown-ups that use reason, logic, communication, and critical thinking skills working together, not some 5,000 year old fat guy who probably got hold of some good opium and sold it to you as spirituality....
Cheers
everyone of your contentions about buddhism are highly debatable. many buddhists are not atheists (correct?).
(jeebus, already got into this w/someone else on this thread, but...) would you care to define "mental disease" and "effective therapeutic modality"? "effective" for what? not having "mental disease"? which means what again?
i have no doubt that meditative/mindfulness practices as described by *zen* buddhists (one very small faction of "buddhism") are indeed "therapeutic", but i find the statement "all suffering is caused by desire" to be one of the most pessimistic, world- & humanity-denying, indeed horrible, statements ever, indeed the embrace of death Nietzsche describes (the philosopher, not the CD poster).
a mental health disease? if you can come up w/an empirical definition of "mental health disease", you'll get the next Nobel Prize and be ranked w/Einstein, Darwin, etc., among the great benefactors of humanity.
but ain't gonna happen, cuz there is no objective, scientific definition of "mental disorder".
so good luck on that project. i'm sure the religious among the doctors, social workers, clinicians, psychologists, philosophers, etc. who work to define "mental illness" will jump right on board. along w/ billions of the "religious" people on the planet you so casually label "mentally ill."
if i should believe in the id & superego, i might as well believe in angels-karl jung.
same goes for "mental illness." it's on about the same level as santa claus and the tooth fairy.
says who you? why are you at the forefront of neurological research?
try and stick to mujeriego's point. perhaps he is trying to give an extreme definition for an extreme condition, the lack of reason. you know, that little thing which allows you to be the sole predator on this planet.
>>same goes for "mental illness." it's on about the same level as santa claus and the tooth fairy.
wow, comparing mental illness with the tooth fairy, are you sure you are not Tom Cruise?
Cheers
if you can give me an objective, empirical, universally valid definition of "mental illness", i'd be happy to hear it.
it doesn't exist. i'm not saying there is no such thing as "mental illness", but defining it is very tricky.
why? b/c all definitions are socially specific and socially derived. the affects, ideas, behaviors, etc., that a group defines as "mental illness" are largely defined by the mores of that group, as deviations from group norms. (obviously i'm not talking about schizophrenia here). and even there, they are situational, and not univeral, even within a given group's mores.
so yeah, belief that there is a *scientific* definition of mental illness is on the same level as belief in santa claus.
but if you can show me otherwise, please do so.
here you go genius:
... schizophrenia definitely has a very significant genetic component. Those who have a third degree relative with schizophrenia are twice as likely to develop schizophrenia as those in the general population. Those with a second degree relative have a several-fold higher incidence of schizophrenia than the general population, and first degree relatives have an incidence of schizophrenia an order of magnitude higher than the general populace. Following are two images that summarize the average risks for developing schizophrenia for different groups of people.
from:
http://www.schizophrenia.com/research/hereditygen.htm
a) not socially derived ... (read GENETIC/EMPIRICAL evidence)
b) as a result of a) happens in all human populations (read "UNIVERSAL") as far as our universe extends.
by the way I love your use of wild cards around *scientific*..
just one question, which of your fairies gave you your computer?
just brilliant....
Cheers
frangelica, hopefully your reading will skills will evolve. as i said above
OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SCHIZOPHRENIA.
the neurological/biological basis of schizophrenia is indisputable. schizophrenia is empirically transcultural and transhistorical (something that cannot be said of other categories of "mental illness,") occuring in about 5% of the population *across the globe, across periods of time.*
but most "mentally ill" people are not schizophrenics. you cannot define other categories of mental illness in ways that are trans-historical and trans-cultural, much less demonstrate their biological basis.
how is that obvious, except in your singular mind?
you asked for empirical evidence of "mental illness". Unless you are saying that schizophrenia is not a "mental illness".
no need to get touchy mate,
just stick to the discussion
Cheers
Reason worship is a form of thought worship, a kind of intellectual materialism. Within that one elevates thought and reason to the highest position, whether it deserves it or not. It becomes the be all and end all of existence, rather than a tool within the wholeness of being. It's adherents inevitably become cynical, clinical, and constricted; they confine themselves to a one-dimensional desert, where they believe they are superior to those who confine themselves within religious belief. In fact, this is often a reaction to fundamentalist upbringing.
Super Tramp said it well in their Logical Song:
"When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
A miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they'd be singing so happily,
Joyfully, playfully watching me.
But then they send me away to teach me how to be sensible,
Logical, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
Clinical, intellectual, cynical."
So called mental illness had many expressions dear frangelica, be careful that you are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You might begin to discover that the 'experts' are just as lost as those the rest of us, and for all their supposed 'knowledge,' they have not peace. Both the religious believer and atheist believe they possess something that the other lacks, and feels superior to the other. The believer will say, "I will pray for you..." while the atheist scoffs at his or her imaginary 'god.' Sadly, neither is aware of the whole of life, and thereby lives in a desert of their own making.
You accuse others of 'mental illness,' while exhibiting a kind of 'hardness' yourself, which cannot be a sign of mental health, expert claims aside.
reason worship = paradox
if you are truly reasonable you cannot worship. in reason, you will find the empirical evidence that reason is not complete, often wrong, and constantly improving. reason allows for it's own imperfections. I cannot say the same for faith.
If I was not clear before, I only refer to the mental illness that can empirically dissected such as schizophrenia (see below).
I disagree with your point about the believer, and the atheist. Their disagreement will remain just that (difference of opinions) until they come to an empirical head, meaning one tries to get rid of the other physically. Then historical precedent will give some clue to what happens, as those with the technology get to write the rules.
maybe I am not clear. the process of evolution has allowed man for the most part to remove most of his natural predators, save bacteria and senescence. the rise of intellect and self-awareness as the ultimate biological advantage, is evident when compared to the rest of natures creatures. there is no reason to think that it will not do the same for evolution within the human population.
the "mental illness" was just me trying to be insulting, and being reasonable I cannot claim that mental health anymore than the next person
If most were honest, they'd say that they do not know whether or not there is a such a thing as God, higher consciousness, or a Reality beyond the comprehension of thought. All else is a projection of they want (embrace) or do not want (resist). Striving to be aware in the present moment is all that one can and need do to penetrate into the truth of the matter.
I'll pray for you.
There is no reason to fear the love of G*d.
Please Joe, pray for yourself, and that you lose your condescending 'I know and you don't' attitude, and maybe come upon a little self-honesty within yourself. Your belief in God is nothing but an adopted deception, as is all religious belief. The 'real' article has much more to do with a state of being, not imitation born of fear.
CIA Factbook:
USA
Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.)
83.3% worship (mostly Christian) organized religion (counting other, not counting Buddhist or unaffiliated)
83.3% is "One Nation Under No God?"
HA!
It's a slam dunk!
Christianity and other religions can be a good influence on people if they are kept where they belong, in the homes and churches, and out of politics and the schools. The problem is the misuse of religious thought, just as it is not helpful to maintain that religion is only a myth by non-believers. Either one, when carried to extreme can cause much harm to our society by division and radicalism. No one has the right answer to these matters, just do not try to cram your belief or non-belief down the other persons throat
"religions can be a good influence on people if they are kept where they belong, in the homes and churches, and out of politics and the schools. "
Out of the banks too!
CHRIS HEDGES WROTE IN ONE OF HIS BOOKS THAT A BELIEF IN GOD IS A GOOD THING FOR GOOD PEOPLE AND A BAD THING FOR BAD PEOPLE I CAN AGREE WITH THAT IN ALOT OF CASES.
"Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money."
George Carlin
Genius
man is the measure of all things, of what is, that it is; of what is not, that it is not-Protagoras
it's odd to me that people advocating for "enlightenment, reason," etc., calling religion hokum, mythology, mental illness, stupidity, ideology, the vestiges of the infantile past of our species, or whatever pejorative term you want, reject the evidence before their eyes: that millions upon millions of people have in the past, do now, and will for the future, desperately need religion.
of course this does not prove anything other than that people find religion useful (certainly does not mean religion is ontologically "true;" it does NOT mean that).
i've yet to see anyone offering anything more useful. nothing at CD beyond childish insults and wild generalizations, and much disdain for the vast majority of humanity. surprising, really, given the amount of sympathy for humanity in general expressed at CD.
(i'm not a believer, btw. just making what i think is an empirical observation)
so you are really good at stating the obvious... maybe you can start a career.
what you are seeing in this very post, is evidence of "PROGRESS". Once upon a time, you would be burned at the stake for speaking against god and religion. Now as you can well see not only do atheists exist, but with time, they will be the norm. And they will laugh at religious people the way modern man laughs at ancient men who were afraid of fire. It comes with understanding, and evolution. That is if capitalism does not destroy humanity first.
In either case, you are proving exactly why atheists are more evolved than you. They understand why hold on to your fantasies, maybe at one point so did they, but they have moved on. Reason allows for progress. Faith does not.
Cheers
well, like i said, i am not a believer, not a religious believer. but hopefully you enlightened homo sapiens won't kill all the neanderthals off. and thanks frangelica for actually reading what i said.
you sure sound more evolved. from where i look that age and those people who speak the most about "progress" have been as murderous and vile as one can imagine.
progress? i'm all for it, but when it comes to morality and social development, we still got a lot of work to do. technological progress has done little to stanch humanity's thirst for blood.
and pissing all over the beliefs of much of humanity sounds like a great place to start. great for developing human solidarity and understanding.
people are (mostly) religious b/c the world is full of suffering and great disappointment. it's that simple.
your childish beliefs in your evolutionary superiority do nothing to help that cause.
belief? don't know the meaning mate.
but apparently, you do. I think it's time we end our conversation as it's becoming obvious the reason you don't "believe" in mental illness, is because you are actually stricken by it. your typed responses, being the "empirical" evidence for it.
good luck and
Cheers
wow. that was brilliant frangelica. your reading skills are truly an evolutionary marvel to behold.
so you've learned a new word :evolution.
can you even define evolution without looking it up?
by the way you used childish and evolution in the same sentence further up. Though I am having a hard time figuring out if you are a grown-up, if you are, your posts give proof of the fact that not even adults understand evolution or what it says about themselves.
Cheers
Let me bring it to your attention, frangelica, that just as religious people cannot prove the existence of god, you cannot prove that in fact there is no god. It's all a matter of belief and your belief is as good as theirs.
Since it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of god, I think the only rational (and honest) approach is to admit that we don't know.
There is no proof for the existence of any god. The "wonder" of "creation" has empirical proof that no god engineered it and even more proof that complex life-forms evolved all by themselves. Explanations grounded in the supernatural have always been used for phenomena not understood by humans.
"The "wonder" of "creation" has empirical proof that no god engineered it and even more proof that complex life-forms evolved all by themselves."
Please be kind enough to provide the proof that there was no mind/consciousness/god behind the evolution of "complex life-forms." Please, note that I am not saying that there was.
"Explanations grounded in the supernatural have always been used for phenomena not understood by humans." And your point?
I have a clue for you it is the same as the proof that there are no unicorns magically holding up the universe.
You are not saying that there is (mind/consciousness/god) but you are definitely under suspicion of thinking it.
I will not speak for the poster, but my $0.02 is that it is this exact lack of understanding that is allowing you the convenient fact of picking one "idea" out of an infinite amount of possibilities to play devil's advocate with.
Cheers
How do you know there are no unicorns magically holding up the universe, frangelica?
"You are not saying that there is (mind/consciousness/god) but you are definitely under suspicion of thinking it." I can say or think that the unicorns hold up the universe, but unless I can prove it, I have no business arguing about it, one way or another! That would be ridiculous and indefensible! And frankly, this is what I consider your position to be - ridiculous and indefensible.
Just because you, as a human, may be too limited to see anything other than what is just in front of your nose, doesn't mean that there is nothing there. Argue all you want, but unless you can bring up some facts to back up your claims, all you have to offer is your opinions.
that is why discussion is much better than living in your own head. I was not being clear. Let me try again.
I was trying to make the point that there are almost infinite things which one cannot prove that they do not exist. All of them are equal in the amount of wasted effort and time one uses to discuss the obvious point that their existence cannot be disproved.
So far we seem to agree :
but unless I can prove it, I have no business arguing about it, one way or another
So now what sort of self delusion do you practice to state in the very next paragraph:
Just because you, as a human, may be too limited to see anything other than what is just in front of your nose, doesn't mean that there is nothing there.
WTF? how confused are you? either empiricism is the basis of understanding reality (my position) or it isn't. you seem to try and have your cake and eat it too....
Cheers
Cannot be proved, cannot be disproved . . . That's the whole point, frangelica.
Why argue about something that you can neither prove, nor disprove, especially if you think it's wasted time and effort to even discuss it?
I don't think I am the one who is deluded here. I don't think it's possible for me to determine if the unicorns and stuff exist or not. The fact that I've never seen them doesn't mean a thing.
Even if empiricism is the basis of understanding reality for you, do you think that humans have achieved their peak development yet? Supposedly, we only use a fraction of our brain power. Can you accept that there is a possibility that there are things in the world that you don't even know that you don't know? If you can't, try to imagine yourself talking about quantum mechanics to Newton or Descartes.
If you think it is strange to consider the possibility of existence of god (or unicorns) read something about modern theoretical physics. String theory, parallel universes, extra dimensions, and so on. It's science. And it is strange. It's hard to believe. It's really mind-boggling.
Am I saying that god exists? No. But I can't say with any degree of certainty that there is no god, either. And neither can you. And no, the fact that he never came to dinner doesn't mean anything.
My position on religion is the one of "benign indifference". For your sake, I hope that's the one you will eventually adopt, too. The question of existence of god is a little different. I don't think anybody has an answer.
Best wishes,
Bea
>Even if empiricism is the basis of understanding reality for you, do you think that humans have achieved their peak development yet? Supposedly, we only use a fraction of our brain power. Can you accept that there is a possibility that there are things in the world that you don't even know that you don't know? If you can't, try to imagine yourself talking about quantum mechanics to Newton or Descartes.
I am pretty sure most people use empiricism to understand reality including yourself. why are you always stating the obvious?
And all of the mind boggling stuff that you mentioned is tested by experiments in the real world. ie (empiricism). otherwise they remain there in the realm of the mind.
>I don't think I am the one who is deluded here. I don't think it's possible for me to determine if the unicorns and stuff exist or not. The fact that I've never seen them doesn't mean a thing.
I think our conversation ends here with this statement, as it speaks volumes about who I am trying to have an honest discussion with...
Cheers
Bea,
You are stating the obvious. I think we are getting away from the real issue here. The use of faith vs reason and logic. There are an infinite number of things that one cannot prove that they do not exist (I am not even sure you can prove a negative). The point is this waste of time of considering just this one very specific thing :namely god.
At the same time, I think there is much further you can go with empiricism to disprove the existence of god as humans define him, then you can to proving that he exists with faith.
Cheers
Winged angels of God scorched those residing in Baghdad and Afghanistan as punishment for their wickedness.
The people resounded with empathy for those wicked slayed. As Moses had ordered in days of old a census was taken of all the tribes that not one of the generation would be allowed to pass into the promised land. The angels watched from on high by satellite thermagraph and datamined all messages.
Then angel Obama, king of the fill-my-tankistines, delivered to Bush the keys of the jail, and Bush walked free from incarceration, and God rejoiced.
Finally the every preparation was complete and the dragon was unleashed on all but the chosen, which was but 1. And in the course of a generation all perished and the garden was prepped and populated with two who were told they were the first on the planet apart from their creator, God.
Well..if you hold down a newborn baby boy, and kicking and screaming while you cut the skin off the end of his penis, drink the blood throught a glass straw,have a party to celebrate tthe mutilation, and then tell him how lucky he is to be a member of your sky-god cult...well, I think we can all do with a little less craziness of that sort.
Hitler: atheist
Stalin: atheist
Mao: atheist
Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.
British philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) once wrote, "Outside human desires there is no moral standard."
That is, unless we embrace the love of G*d.
Atheist Richard Dawkins once stated in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."
Well, the answer is easy, it's G*d.
Oseh shalom bimromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleynu, ve'al kol Yisrael ve'imru amen.
I'm an Atheist and I haven't murdered anyone.
Morals don't come from religion. They come from a human desire to do what is best for the group, in ANY social setting.
And exactly what question was Dawkins responding to? I hope your not quoting him out of context.
Ok so lets embrace the love of God-. What about the millions, even billions, who suffer from disease, famine, and poverty daily. Where's God's love for them?
I found the Dawkins quote here:
http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist
"I'm an Atheist and I haven't murdered anyone."
I hope you don't think I'm accusing you of murder. You didn't have the misfortune of being named after Mao, Stalin, or Hitler, did you?
"Morals don't come from religion. They come from a human desire to do what is best for the group, in ANY social setting."
Yes, I think that was exactly how Hitler, Stalin, and Mao felt. Hitler, for example, felt it was his moral duty to rid the earth of Jews.
"Ok so lets embrace the love of God-. What about the millions, even billions, who suffer from disease, famine, and poverty daily. Where's God's love for them?"
Cheap shot. But fair.
Perhaps G*d shows his love for them through our compassion and desire to help those in need. Another answer is that through our suffering - we find G*d. I'll admit it's a hard question.
This is the great conundrum of all religion - why does G*d allow suffering? The answer is unknowable. A test of faith? Perhaps. I don't have the answer. But it does not shake my faith. G*d works in mysterious ways.
You forgot to mention that all three tyrants also breathed air, ate, slept, wore clothes, etc.
Ooops, that makes them just like me and you.
Put down your coloring book, and listen: You are too naive to understand power and those who wield it against you, so just go somewhere and pray, or just go to sleep with a simplistic version of good and evil, maybe the grinch that stole christmas. Let the adults discuss things in peace ok, sweetie?