Original post on 7/5/2013 on the exmormon email discussion group on yahoogroups:
Now that I actually have a child I'm finding that some secular advocacyReply received from the vice president of the Exmormon Foundation:
groups either are actively not child friendly, or they are passively so (by
inaction or just not thinking things through).
Related blog post: http://goo.gl/4f1L2
Jonathan
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 13:34:29 -0400 (EDT), Sue wrote:
>Jonathan -- if you will read carefully our position on children at the----end of quote
>Conference, I think you will find that it's pretty reasonable. Because we
>film and record the talks, and extraneous noise can seriously affect that
>filming, we cannot have toddlers and older children in the room. We all have
>experienced times at other events (including Sac. Mtg.!!) when the noise
>from children has compromised a speaker. The serving of alcohol is another
>reason. Nursing babies are allowed.
>
>Sue
And here's my reply as of July 14, 2013:
----quote beings
Howdy,
I'm aware of the reasoning behind the "strict no child policy" and I believe it's fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons:
1. Having people show up is more important than creating what some might perceive as youtube friendly multimedia presentations or podcasts.
2. Having a no child policy is discriminatory. In apartments, housing, work, and at exmormon conferences - and for the same reasons. It simply seeks to pretend and hope like a certain segment of the population does not exist, and should stay away.
3. Humans have children. Atheists & exmormons should have more of them and they should be encouraged to do so. Having a "strict no child policy" serves to directly counter that noble and highly valuable goal.
4. Children are part of life and part of valuing life, and they are the ones who will help us move forward.
So, when I was a 365 pound single guy with thick glasses living in my parent's basement, yes, policies which bar children didn't much affect me. When Steve Clark of Latter-Day Lampoon / the Salamander Society was running the Salt Lake conferences I don't believe he had a no child policy. But in any case, I've moved on from "needing" to have an association with a group which labels itself as "exmormon" per se. Naturalist. Humanist. Atheist. Skeptic. Enlightenment Values Advocate. These are a few of my favorite things. "Exmormon" is a bit too myopic, limited in scope.
It's unfortunate that participants in the current exmo conferences are little more than props in a presentation primarily targeted at the Internet.
I've seen groups go down hill before. A pet bird club in Salt Lake (Avicultural Society of Utah) was run into the ground by an overly controlling president. The other club here continues ok. Atheist groups have has similar splits and shenanigans, in Salt Lake, Portland, and Texas.
I guess the bottom line is that, if you're going to continue with this no child policy, you'll end up turning advocates into adversaries. So, as of this time I'm against support for attendance at the Exmormon Foundation conferences, and I suggest that other people also not support attendance. Instead, I'd suggest that people either attend local secular advocacy groups, or start a secular advocacy group of your own. But, if you really don't like children at your events, consider the morality of also excluding blacks, gays, and Mexicans from your events as well while you do so. As you pan your camera across the audience you'd perhaps want to ensure that no non-European faces appear, so as to not upset anyone - just as some people don't want to upset their youtube presentations with the presence of children.
I make this point just to remind people what category of activity discrimination against people with children fits into. Having a "strict no child policy" is in the same category as a strict no black person policy, a strict no gay person policy, and a strict no Mexican person policy.
Real people who show up are the most important.
I realize that in ultra-social-liberal culture there is the view that people should have less or no children. I don't agree with that view, and I think it's not only misguided it's destructive.
A child and his parents being present is more important than the audio quality on your online podcast.
A child and her parents being present is more important than whether you have a personal distaste for children.
A child and his parents being present is more important than whether people on youtube can hear 100% of what's being said by a speaker. Flesh & blood people who show up are the most important, and if they are not, then they are merely your unwary props.
We, who left the Mormon Church, are not your props. We're humans, and humans have babies.
So, don't get stuck in cults of personalities. That's one key thing we've learned. If you encounter a group with an overly controlling president, then don't spend too much time with that group. Be honest in what you say. Maybe found a group of your own. Find like minded people. That's my advise to people who leave the Mormon Church.
Not everything that happened in the Church was bad. Children are good and should be valued. A "strict no child policy" does not value them, nor does it honor the fact that humans have them.
I know you've done a lot of good work in the past. And when I was a fat bast*** virgin with thick glasses living in my parents basement, I didn't really think about "hey, where's the kids?" at the exmo conferences. But, now that I'm 100 pounds lighter, have a wife and a kid, and am living a more normal life I can now see the more true situation.
A group that meets in Salt Lake should have Salt Lake roots. And no group should have the right to discriminate against people with kids. It should be illegal, just as it is illegal to discriminate against black people, gay people, and etc.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
