Organizational Variation in the American Nonreligious Community

Amanda Schutz Organizational Variation in the American Nonreligious Community

1Introduction

Social scientists are learning more about nonreligion and those who claim no religious preference. Recent research focuses on the growth of the unaffiliated (Baker and Smith 2015;Hout and Fischer 2002), how and whyindividuals become nonreligious (Fazzino 2014; Hunsbergerand Altemeyer 2006;Ritchey 2009;Smith 2011;Zuckerman 2012a), collective identity formation (Guenther, Mulligan, and Papp 2013;LeDrew 2013;Smith 2013), prejudice and discrimination directed towardatheists (Cragunetal. 2012; Edgell, Gerteis,and Hartmann 2006;Gervais,Shariff, and Norenzayan 2011), and the rise of New Atheism, fa- cilitated by new media and the popularity of atheist writers (Amarasingam 2012; Cimino and Smith 2014).¹ Some of these researchers have also addressed nonreligious organizations, or groups that offer activities and services to thosewho identify with nonreligious labels.Thus, these groups are specifically not religious,not merelyreli- giously neutral (Eller 2010). Recent research suggests that the nonreligious community is aheterogeneous one, that nonreligious identities and the pathways that leadtothem maybejust as diverse as religious ones, and that “typologies” of non-belief can be developed(Cotter 2015;Mastiaux, this volume; Silveret al. 2014; Zuckerman 2012b). Giventhis variation in nonreligious identities, we can reasonablyexpect to encounter heterogeneity in organizational structures and outcomes as well. This prompts me to ask: What are the differentorganiza- tional types that exist in the American nonreligious community? What purposes do they servefor the people who join them?What kinds of events, activities,and services do they provide? These are largely descriptive questions and answering them will provide acontext in which individual and collective meaning making takes place. Several methodsofcategorizing organizational activity into atypologycould be employed effectively.Such groups could be organized based on the identity of individuals who join them: an organization for atheists, an organization for hu-

 Summaries of previous research on nonreligioncan be found in several chapters throughout this volume.

OpenAccess. ©2017 Amanda Schutz, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the CreativeCommons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458657-007 Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM 114 Amanda Schutz manists, an organization for skeptics,and so on. While the names of organizations oftenreflect such categorization, this maynot produce the most informa- tive typology. The terminologyused to describe nontheisticlabels and ideologies – both by laypeople and the academics who studythem – is diverse and contest- ed (Lee2012). Theselabels are undoubtedlyimportant to nonbelievers, who often make subtle distinctions when discussing their nonreligious identities. However, if presented alaundry list of nonreligious labels, manynonbelievers would identify with multiple labels (Langston, Hammer,and Cragun, this volume). Ibelieveamore useful waytocategorize these groups – that is, assign them identities – is by their functions, purposes, goals, or the chief benefitsthey aim to provide for their members, which can be expressed through the types of events that organizations offer.Todetermine what these functions are, Ianalyzed meet- ingsand activities hosted and sponsored by several nonreligious organizations in Houston, Texas. In the remainder of this chapter,Iwill discuss some relevant literatureonnonreligion, and how organization theory can be applied to the studyofnonreligion. Iwill then describe methods of data collection, the organizations observed, and the sample of nonbelievers interviewed for this project. Next,Iwill detail atypologyofthe events thatare hosted, sponsored, and promoted by Houston’snonreligious organizations, which Isuggest can be used to determine an organization’smostsalient identity.Finally, Iwill brieflydiscuss the implications of gainingabetter understandingoforganized nonreligion.

2Background 2.1 Nonreligion Studies

Lois Lee defines nonreligion as “anything which is primarily defined by arela- tionship of difference to religion” (2012,131). Nonreligion is associated with a number of terms; if nonreligious individuals choose alabel at all, they may use words such as atheist, agnostic, skeptic, humanist,freethinker,orsecularist to describethemselves. (I refer to these individuals collectively as “nonbelievers.”)Inthe past,researchers have been reluctant to view nonreligion as asocial phenomenon rather than an individual one because, historically, it has been seen as aforcethat promotes individualism rather than integration, with nonbelievers being perceivedasimmoral, nonconforming, and alienated(Campbell [1971]2013). However,the social significance of nonreligion is especiallyevident todayasmore people organize themselvesinto coherent structures thatexplicitly reject religious belief.

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM Organizational Variation in the American Nonreligious Community 115

Much of the research on the nonreligious focuses on individuals’ identity formationand the stigma they face, particularlyifclaiming an atheist identity. Nonbelievers have consistentlyremained astigmatizedgroup, despite the fact that they are slowlygainingacceptance in American society,though at aslower rate than other marginalized groups (Edgell et al. 2006;Edgell at al. 2016). Re- search on perceptions of atheists shows that out of along list of minoritygroups, atheists consistentlyrank as one of the least liked and most distrusted; Ameri- cans see atheists as aculturalthreat and the group least likelytoshare theirvi- sion of American society,compared to Muslims, immigrants, and LGBTQ individuals (Edgell et al. 2006). Other research suggests that people see atheists as a sort of “ethical wildcard” and are unsure of what they actuallybelieve(Gervais et al. 2011,1202). As this stigma is discreditable and not immediatelyvisibletoothers (Goff- man 1963), atheists are able to “pass” as believers if they wish; in such cases, the stigmatizedindividual is typicallyresponsible for signalingtoothers that he or she does not fit normative assumptions (Gagne, Tewksbury,and McGaugh- ey 1997). Somenonbelievers are reticent to disclose their lack of belief, fearing they mayexperience disapproval or rejection from others (Smith 2011). Thus, nonreligious organizations maybeavaluable resource for nonbelievers, aiding in the management and normalization of this stigmatized identity (Doane and Elliott 2014).

2.2 Organization Theory

Organizational involvement could be asignificant variable in the nonreligious experience;thus, it is important to examine the types of organizations in which nonbelievers choose to spend theirtime.Within the nonreligious community,organizations will take on different roles,or, Isuggest,embrace different identitiesthatare displayedtothe public via the events they offer. Social scientists have no shortageofinterpretations surroundingthe term “identity.” It can be understood bothasaninternalized aspect of one’sself and as agroup or collective phenomenon (Owens 2003). It can serveasamoti- vator of social or political action, but can also be aconsequenceofsuch action (Brubaker and Cooper2000). It is aconcept thattranscends levels of analysis and can be investigated at the individual, group, or organization level (Ashforth, Rogers,and Corley 2011;Gioia 1998;Whetten 1998). Like individuals,organizations need answers to identity questions like “Who are we?” or “What do we want to be?” in order to successfullyinteract with and communicatetheirvalues and goals to others (Albert,Ashforth, and Dutton 2000;Albertand Whetten

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM 116 Amanda Schutz

1985). Organizational identity refers to what members “perceive,feel and think” about the organization they belong to (Hatch and Schultz 2007,357). It allows an organization to distinguish itself from others that mayshare common goals and functionsbyexpressing its “character,” or whatever the group deems “important and essential” (Albert and Whetten 1985, 266). Organization theorists suggest thatoutsiderscan affect the character of an organization (Dutton and Dukerich 1991;Hsu and Hannan 2005). This is asignificant point because much research has focused on the negative perceptions people have of atheists, but less has examined how nonbelievers respond to these perceptions as collectives(see Fazzino, Borer,Abdel Haq 2014; Guenther 2014; Zuckerman 2014,11–37). Somenonbelievers mayexpend considerable effort toward dispelling the stereotypes attributed to them, which can be funneled through organizational channels; in otherwords, if nonbelievers wish to signal to outsiders that they are socially engaged, compassionate, or ethical, they may form or join an organization that prioritizes the qualities they value. Action within the context of nonreligious organizations,then, can help members manage the impressions they (as nonbelievers) give others (see Smith 2013). However, since little is known about what nonreligious organizations actuallydo, reac- tions to such groups – from both averagereligious Americans and the nonbelievers unfamiliar with them – can be critical.Thisisespeciallytrue of organizations that more closelyresemble religious groups,perhapsbecause the idea of organized nonreligion is counterintuitive (see Smith, Frost,this volume). Research has suggested thatorganizations with contradictory elements can elicit aggressive responses (Galaskiewicz and Barringer 2012); since nonbelievers reject belief in a supernatural deity,others assume that they will reject other aspects of religion (e.g., astrong moralcode) as well. To this point,such organizations have been utilized primarilyasastrategy of sampling for atheists, or acontext wherenonreligious identities are fostered (Hunsbergerand Altemeyer 2006;LeDrew 2013;Ritchey 2009;Smith 2013). How- ever,with few exceptions, researchers have not closelyexamined nonreligious organizations as entities in and of themselves, their variation, or how these for- mal and informal groups might affect (or be affectedby) those who join them (see Guenther,Mulligan, and Papp 2013;Lee 2015,106–130;Zuckerman 2014, 107–136). Research that does address nonreligious organizations usuallyrefers to such groups abstractlyand as aunited collective,rather than parsing out the specific and diverse goals that each organization in agiven area mayhave (though see Shook, this volume). Recognizing that not all organizations are cre- ated equal can allow for more nuance in our discussions of nonbelievers’ identities, motivations,beliefs, and practices.Shedding light on what each of these

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM Organizational Variation in the American Nonreligious Community 117 organizations does mayalso broaden perceptions of nonbelievers and organized nonreligion as awhole.

3Dataand Methods

As part of alargerproject,Iused qualitative research methods to explore how individual and collective nonreligious experiences manifest as organizational action; this chapter describes such action. Iconducted approximately 80 discrete observations among eight local nonreligious organizations in the Houston area, over aperiod of eight months. Iconducted 125semi-structured in-depth interviews with founders,leaders,and members of these groups,aswell as people who werenot actively involved. Ialso performedcontent analysis on websites, interactions on social media, and literature distributed at events. Field notes and transcripts werecoded line by line and patterns emergedinductively,allowing me to discern variation in the activities and events each organization hosted. Ianalyzedeach organization’sself-description (usually publishedonawebsite or in distributed writtenmaterial), what members said about the organizations, and my own observations of events and activities. In cases wherethese accounts differ,Idefer to my observations and justify my reasoningfor doing so. By trian- gulating observations,personal accounts, and recorded material, Iwas able to construct atypologyofnonreligious events. The events sponsored by nonreligious organizations reflect their members’ priorities, and by focusing on events (i.e., what the organizations do), we can determine their “essential character” (i.e., what they are).

3.1 The Setting

Houston seems an ideal setting to conduct research on organized nonreligion. Texas is generallysociallyand politically conservative,and manyTexans are evangelical Protestants. Houston is also hometoseveral of the largest mega- churches in the US.Itisconsistentlyranked by national polls as one of the most religious states,having aboveaverage levels of affiliation, belief, commit- ment,and religious behaviors. However,Houston also claims to host the world’s largest atheistcommunity and provides adiverse rangeofevents for thosewho identify with various nonreligious labels. The city appears to be in a “Goldilocks zone” between high and low levels of secularitythat allow nonreligious organizations to thrive.Houston is the fourth- largest city in the US,set to overtake Chicagointhe comingdecades. It is descri-

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM 118 Amanda Schutz bed by its inhabitants as “cosmopolitan” and is one of the most diverse cities in the country – racially, ethnically, and culturally(Klinenberg2016;Steptoe 2016). In order for its inhabitants to coexist,itmust be tolerant of diversitytosome ex- tent.Atthe sametime, Houston is located firmlyinthe Bible Belt,not far re- moved from the Deep South, wherereligion is prevalent enough that nonbelievers can expect to encounter it in everydayinteractions. Nonbelievers in Houston report hearing religion in political rhetoric (both locallyand nationally), seeing it make its wayinto public classrooms,and frequentlybeing asked, “Where do you go to church?” upon meeting new acquaintances.Nonbelievers in places like Houston mayfeel agreater need to organize in response to religion than those in more secular communities like Boston, San Francisco, or Seattle, while simul- taneously feeling safer openlydoing so thaninpredominatelyconservative Christian or rural communities. However,this should not suggest that cities or regions that are more or less religious than averagecannot produce successful nonreligious organizations. Forexample, some research has described successful atheistgroups in rural areas,eveninthe face of resistanceand marginalization from religious others (Ritchey 2009). Conversely, the SundayAssembly – agrowingsecular organization thatemulates church services – wasfounded in London, despite nearlyhalf of Britons having no religious affiliation (Baggand Voas 2010). Further research in arangeofsettingsisneeded to confirm anyconcrete patterns of organizational vitality,though García and Blankholm (2016) suggest thatnonreligious organizations tend to emerge in US counties with largerpopulations of evangelical Protestants.

3.2 The Organizations

Nearlyall nonreligious organizations in Houston have apubliconline presence (e.g., social networkingsites like Meetup.com and Facebook.com), so as to at- tract participants. Houston hosts several large local nonreligious organizations (totaling5,000+ online members at the time of fieldwork)that provide avariety of gatherings for nonbelievers.Iconducted participant observation among eight of these organizations, each hosting regularlyscheduled, recurringevents open to the public; that is, all organizations discussed here sponsor events that occur weekly, biweekly, monthly, quarterly, or annually,which anyone can attend. The three largest nonreligious organizations – Houston Atheists (HA), the Humanists of Houston (HOH), and the Greater Houston Skeptic Society (GHSS) – host or promote avariety of gatherings(e.g.,coffee socials, discussion groups, family-friendlyhappy hours, volunteer opportunities, meditation) that mayap-

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM Organizational Variation in the American Nonreligious Community 119 peal to different niches (muchlike the national organizations described by Faz- zino and Cragun, this volume) and draw in different types of nonbelievers (like those described by Mastiaux, this volume). Another organization, the Houston Oasis (Oasis, hereafter) – dubbed a “godless congregation” duetoits churchlike structure – meets every Sundayfor coffee and fellowship, music, and alecture. (Atthe time of fieldwork, Oasis had also launched “franchises” in Kansas City and Dallas,and were preparingtolaunchinBoston.) Smaller groups in the Houston area include Houston Church of Freethought(HCoF),Natural Spiritual- ists (NS), Houston Black Nonbelievers (HBN),and alocal chapter of the national organization Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU). Some of these groups alsocoordinated action with an Austin-based organization, Atheists Helpingthe Homeless (AHH), though Idid not directlyobserve this group.

3.3 Sample

My sample of interview respondents shares manydemographic characteristics with those of previous researchonnonreligion. Slightlyoverhalf of respondents weremale, over two-thirds werewhite, about three-quarters had abachelor’sde- gree or higher,and three-quarters identified as politicallyleft-leaning, with ame- dian ageof43(rangingfrom 20 to 84). Respondents wererecruited directlyfrom group meetings,via Meetup mailing lists or Facebook posts (depending on the recommendation of group leaders), and by word-of-mouth and snowball sampling.Most participants grew up with some degreeofsocialization in Protestant Christian denominations, though Ialso interviewed people who wereraised Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah’sWitness, Muslim, Hindu, and nothing in particular. Since there is no obligation to attend meetingsafter joining nonreligious groups online, by sending requests for interviews using Meetup and Facebook (rather than recruiting solelyfrom group meetings) Iwas able to reach people with various levels of involvement with the organizations,includingfounders, leaders, regular attendees, those who attend occasionallyorrarely, those who used to but no longer attend, those who have not yetattendedbut intend to, and those who have no interest in attending face-to-face events. Speaking with nonbelievers about their organizational affiliations and preferences (or lack thereof)provided insight into how people viewed these groups and what they offer,and whether or not these impressions matched those thatorganizations wereattemptingtogive.

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM 120 Amanda Schutz

4ATypologyofNonreligiousEventsand Organizations

As the number of nonreligious organizations increasesinagivenarea, they may develop distinctive characteristics and values in order to differentiatethemselves from others. In this way, nonreligious organizations do more than provide a space wherepeople can simply “not believeinGod”;they servespecific purposes and fulfill functions (manyofwhich echo thosefulfilled by churches) that they cannot or choose not to fulfill via other means.

Table1.Typology of Nonreligious Events and Organizational Identity

Type of Purpose Examples of meet- Organization(s) displaying identity as event ings and activities most salient

Social Socializing with Dinner,happy hour, Houston Atheists like-minded others game nights

Communal Community build- Church-likegather- Houston Oasis ing ings, fundraising, potlucks

Educational Learning and en- Lectures/presenta- Humanists of Houston, GreaterHous- gaging in struc- tions, debates, tonSkeptics Society,Houston Black tured discussion book clubs Nonbelievers,Houston Church of Free- thought

Political Raisingawareness Protests, political Americans United forthe Separation of of church/state discussions, rallies Church and State issues

Charitable Donating and Blood drives,food Atheists Helping the Homeless volunteering bank, sorting do- nated items

Spiritual Experiencing emo- Meditation, philo- Spiritual Naturalists tions associated sophical discus- with religion sions

The typologyshown in Table 1and developedbelow is based on the various types of events that nonreligious organizations sponsor,which are typicallyor- ganized, hosted, or promoted by leaders and/or acoregroup of highlyactive members. Iclassifythese activities as falling into six categories: social,communal, educational, political,charitable, and spiritual. These “typesofevents” can serveasaproxy for organizational identity: an organization thathosts primarily

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM Organizational Variation in the American Nonreligious Community 121 social events can be considered a “social” organization, an organization that hosts primarily educational events is considered an “educational” organization, and so forth. Thus, the identitiesassigned to the organizations described below are ideal types. In practice, organizations maydisplaydifferent identitiesatdif- ferent times by offering different types of meetings and activities that provide different purposes. Thisisofcourse true of individuals as well: we are capable of having multiple identities, but at anygiven moment one of our identitiesmay be more salient than another (Stryker and Burke 2000). If an organization tends to stress aparticular purpose over others, if certain eventsprovemore popular by drawing largercrowds,orifthe group sponsorsaparticular type of activity more frequentlythanothers, Iconsider this its primary,ormost salient,organizational identity. It is also important to note thatassigningidentities based on events that reflect agroup’sprimary purpose – determined by the organizations’ statedmis- sions, what members sayabout them (duringinterviews,inpassing at meetings, and online), and my own impressions of the events they sponsor – is not the onlyway to categorize nonreligious organizations.Asmentioned previously, they could be categorizedbasedonthe identitiesofthosewho join them (atheist,humanist,skeptic, etc.), though Iamskeptical of the usefulnessofsuch a typologyatthe organization level. Organizations could alsobecategorizedby their leadership structures,orlevel of formality.Theymay have hierarchical leadership, with apresident and board of directors who administrate all activity,or they maybestructured horizontally, with responsibilities diffused among many committed members. They can be run as dictatorships or democracies. They can be formalizedwith 501(c)(3) status, securing the samelegal and monetary ben- efits granted to othernon-profit organizations,orpursue no such ambitions. Meetingsmay have strict agendas or none at all. This is an avenue certainly worth exploring further; indeed, the groups Iobserved did displayavariety of organizational structures,though as atypologyitmay not capturethe variation that manifests via agroup’sdiverse membership. Ultimately, based on the data collected, Iconstructed atypologybased on events, which Ibelieverepresents the character of the organizations and values of their members.

4.1 Social

Some nonreligious organizations are primarily social in nature.Houston Athe- ists, for example, prioritizes providingmembers asafe spacetosocialize with like-minded others, wherethe topic of religion will not be apoint of contention. Other research has identifiedthis as akey reason people give for joininganathe-

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM 122 Amanda Schutz ist community (Tomlins 2015). In fact,atHAevents, religion often was not apop- ular topic of conversation. Throughout the course of fieldwork, Inoticed thatif someone was afirst-time attendee at these types of events, they wereoften asked about their religious background, or how long they had been anonbeliever.Itwas typicallyassumed that fellow attendees had “de-converted” from religion or somehow “discovered” atheism. In fact,onlyone interviewee of 125ex- plicitlyindicated being raised an atheist; all other respondents wereeither raised in some religious tradition or as “nothing in particular” before they con- cluded at some point thatthey did not believe. As these organizations are, by name, non-religious, this topic often fueledinitial conversations between new acquaintances. After these brief “introductory” talks, conversation usuallyshifted, often revolvingaround topics like science,entertainment,orcurrent events. Still, in the event that the topic of religion did come up, members could rest assured that there would be no need to “come out of the closet” like there might be in other social settings. Pat²,amemberofHA, had this to sayabout the group’ssocial gatherings:

One big thingthat can makeyou uncomfortable if you’re lookingfor friends and you’re an atheist is, youknow,ifthe person is religious it’sinevitablygoingtocome up, and you’re going to have to deal with it.But sidestepping, skippingthat whole issue is nice. So it doesn’tmean you’re going to likeeverybodyoryou’re going to agree with everybodyonpo- litical issues or anythinglikethat,but that’sone big topic that youcan avoid, which is nice.

Being able to disclose anonreligious identity without risk of judgment was abig draw for many people who chose to attend these meetings.Regardless of the sponsoringorganization, these events share some characteristics: thereisnearly always food, coffee, or alcohol and there is rarely an agenda. There is alsono leader or designated authority figure directingaction or conversation. They are usually held in public spaces like arestaurant or bar,oroccasionallyata group member’shomeinthe form of apotluck. Nearlyall of the nonreligious organizations in Houston offered informal social gatherings throughout the month, though most did not prioritize these types of meetings.

 Interview respondents have been givenpseudonyms. Names of organizations and their leaders (publicallyavailable information) have not been altered.

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM Organizational Variation in the American Nonreligious Community 123

4.2 Communal

Nonreligious organizations can alsobecommunal. Members strive to share knowledge,skills,and services with one another,with afocus on creating community.Overthe course of my fieldwork, Ibegan encountering events and activities that involved gathering members togetherinashared safe space, but did not quite fall into the strictly “social” category described above. The idea of “community,” Ifound,isdeeper thansimplymeeting abasic desire to socialize. At social events, participants meet over food or drink for conversation with other nonbelievers, which mayormay not result in the samepeople gatheringat the same place for subsequent gatherings.While a “communal” organization mayhost such events, its primarypurpose is to function as aconsistent,depend- able group, wheremembers can ask for help if they need it and takeadvantage of learning anew skill when offered – much like atypical church does for its congregants. The Houston Oasisisaprime example of such an organization: they do host dinners and happy hours like thosedescribed in the preceding sec- tion, but they also strive to be an enduringcommunity that fosters asense of be- longingamong nonbelievers. Someone looking for aclose-knit secular community (perhaps filling avoid left from leaving achurch, though not necessarily) might be drawntoOasis for this reason over agroup like Houston Atheists. (However,this should not suggest that people involved exclusively in social organizations like HA cannot forge deep connections;indeed, some people I spoke to had developed close friendships or mettheirspouses at such events.) These organizations can be especiallyappealing to youngcouples and fam- ilies with small children, who are looking for like-minded and similarlysituated people to share experiencesand build relationships thatwill extend beyond the events hosted by the organization. These are, of course, alsofunctions that are performedbychurches and other intimate communities.During an interview, Alayna discussed the significant role church playedinher life, and how difficult it wastogiveupwhen she began questioning her faith:

Honestly, the last thing that was holdingmeback fromfullyadmitting that Ididn’tbelieve in God, was the concept of community.… Ineed church, Ineed acommunity that has my back even if Idon’tknow these people, right?Because I’mpart of their community,they’re gonna step up and help me, or they’re gonna be therefor me and they’re gonna create a sense of home for my children. Because it did that for me as achild. Churchwas areally fun placefor me. Iloved church, Iloved the friends Ihad at church, Iloved the sports I playedthrough church. And Iwas reallyafraid of sayingI’mnot gonna be part of achurch anymore….OnceIrealized that Icould have community without God, Iwas gone.

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM 124 Amanda Schutz

While some founders, leaders,and members of organizations like Oasis do not wish to be compared to achurch, others, like Alayna, recognize and appreciate the similarities. WeeklyOasisevents, for example, mimic the structure of a church service. They meet every Sundaymorning for coffee, cookies,music (per- formances,not sing-a-longs), and alecture, sometimesgiven by amember of the community but often givenbyoutside speakers.When no speaker is scheduled in advance, apresentation is givenbyMike Aus: co-founder,executive director, and de facto leader of Oasis. They offer childcare duringthe meeting (some even call it a “service”)and pass around hats to collect donations. They host family friendlyevents, happy hours, and discussion groups.They are a501(c)(3) educational non-profit organization, with asalaried executive director and aboard of directors. Oasis was also workingtowardbuildinga“directory of skills” that would list select group members alongsidetheir professions or services they wereable and willing to perform for other members. If, for instance, someoneatOasis needed a dentist,anelectrician, or childcare, they could consultthe directory and enlist the services of afellow community memberbefore resortingtooutside recom- mendations. Similarly,churches – particularlythose cateringtoimmigrant and minoritypopulations – often provide their congregations with basic resources beyond spiritual fulfillment (Cadge and Ecklund 2007;Pattillo-McCoy1998). Having the option of relying on other group members for everyday(even trivial) needs can help foster asense of affinity among nonbelievers that churches have successfullyprovided theircongregations for generations. Oasis was appealing to Alayna precisely because it shared these characteristics – bothsignificant and trivial – with her conception of “church,” not in spite of them. Formanyformerlyreligious nonbelievers, church is synonymous with community,and anonreligious organization’sability to mimic these qualities can provide familiarity and comfort.

4.3 Educational

Several of Houston’snonreligious organizations could be categorized as educational. While some members do become involved to meet social needs, others say they are looking for “something more”;they want to learn something new or en- gage intellectuallyinstructureddiscussions. At these types of events, members can learn about and debate the philosophical merits of atheismand shortcom- ingsofreligion, hold discussions about science, ethics, or social issues, or ac- quire new perspectivesfrom outsider groups,likethe LGBTQorBlack communities. Theorganizations mayhostlecturesand presentations(givenbycommunity

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM Organizational Variation in the American Nonreligious Community 125 membersorguest speakers)oradvertise outsideeventsofinterest.These typesof gatherings were themostpopular amongnonreligious organizations,and nearly allofthe organizations Iobservedhostededucational events;evengroupsthat didnot host thesetypes of events,likeHAand Spiritual Naturalists,often promoted thosehostedbyother organizations on theirMeetupand Facebook pages. Or- ganizations specificallyprioritizing theseevents, thus displaying an educational identity most prominently, include HumanistsofHouston,Greater HoustonSkep- ticSociety,Houston BlackNonbelievers, andHouston Church of Freethought(de- spiteits tongue-in-cheekname, Icategorizethe HCoF as an educationalorganiza- tion ratherthanacommunal one,asits events tend to focuslessoncommunity building andmoreonintellectual stimulation). Whilethe nonbelievers Iobservedwerenot always keen on restrictingcasual conversations to religion and nonbelief, educational events frequentlydealt with these topics.For example, sociologist PennyEdgell gave atalk at RiceUniversity, whereshe presented data from the new wave of the AmericanMosaic Project, discussingnew and persistent trends among atheists and the unaffiliated. She was joined by AnthonyPinn, aBlack professor of religion at Rice and author of the book Writing God’sObituary: How AGood Methodist Became an Even Bet- ter Atheist. This event was hosted by the university,but was promotedbyseveral nonreligious organizations, includingHA, HOH, and HBN.Pinn has also made appearancesasaninvited speaker at some of Houston’slocal nonreligious gatherings. Topics up for discussion at these types of events varied widely. Sometimes educational events dealt with scientific topics, such as atalk hosted by GHSS about conservation programs at the Houston Zoo. Other times these eventsfo- cused on social issues, like HBN’sdiscussions about massincarceration and ho- mophobia in the Black community.Ethical concerns werealsoapopulartopic of discussion, perhaps because nonbelievers are often assumed to lack amoral compass (Gervais et al. 2011;Zuckerman 2009). Forexample, earlyinmyfield- work Oasisbegan holding amonthlydiscussion group focused on ethical issues, such as the death penalty,euthanasia, and organtransplantation. As Mike Aus, formerpastor and co-founder of Oasis, said preceding aSundaymorning lecture, “There’ssomuch to talk about when you’re not limited to one book.”

4.4 Political

Another role these organizations can playisapolitical one: they can offer events that focus on raising awareness of church/stateissues and providing members knowledge and access to political channels. Such events might aim to incite

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM 126 Amanda Schutz changeinpolicies thatcould be interpreted as favoring religious individuals and institutions, perhaps going so far as to initiate lawsuits challengingsuch poli- cies. Forexample, the Houston chapterofAmericans United tries to host an event every quarter.One of these events featured adiscussion with Ellery Schempp,plaintiff in the 1963Supreme Court case Abington School District v. Schempp,which banned mandatory Bible readingsinpublicschools.However, AU is not anonreligious organization in the sense thatother organizations discussed here are. It was foundedin1947byProtestant Christians and caters to both the religious and nonreligious who wish to see agovernment freefrom religious influence(and religion freefrom government influence). Manyofmyre- spondentsspoke of the separation of church and state as acause that can be supported by believers and nonbelievers alike, an idea supported by social research (Baker and Smith 2009). Still, AU events are promotedbyseveral of Hous- ton’snonreligious organizations for thosemembers who are passionateabout issues tying together politics and secularism. Such organizations can also encouragepolitical activism, or promoteevents that highlight secular,political causes(see Fazzino, Borer,and Abdel Haq 2014). Forexample, there was arecurringprotest that HOH had been hosting with Am- nesty International, in which members met in front of the Saudi Arabian consu- late to protest the treatment of Raif Badawi, aliberal bloggerwho was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for posting critical comments about Islam in Saudi Arabia. Another prominent issue plaguing secular Texans duringmy fieldwork involved the injection of religion into public classrooms:group members angrilyspoke of anew history textbook the state was considering adopting, which cited Moses as an honorary Founding Father of the US. Respondents oftenreportedbeing frustrated with this kind of infusion of religion and public life, both at home and abroad.They spoke of seeking an outlet for such frustrations, but werealso cynical about the efficacy of actions likepro- testingand petitioning.However,Idid recognize at least 30 people from Houston who made the 165mile drive to Austin for the second annual Texas Secular Con- vention, an entire weekend of talks on church/stateissues specificallyfacing the citizensofTexas, which hosted panelsand presentations with titles such as “The Importance of Secular Education,”“Staying in Contact with Your Legislator,” and “Effective Ways to Build Coalitions Between Progressive Religious and Sec- ular Communities.”

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM Organizational Variation in the American Nonreligious Community 127

4.5 Charitable

Nonreligious organizations might be primarilyconcerned with charitable en- deavors, such as providingopportunities to donate and volunteer as individuals or as members of anonreligious community.Groups like HOH and Oasis hosted at least one charitable event each month (e.g.,volunteering at local food banks, donation centers,and hosting blood drives),and members of these organizations often participatedinmonthlygiveaways with Atheists Helping the Homeless,a group launched in Austin, Texas, in 2009 that had recentlystarted achapter in Houston. However,manynonbelievers Iinterviewed expressed adesire to see more activities like this,and lamentedthatthere weretoo few opportunities to volunteer with nonreligious organizations. In fact,they recognized that religious groups often do charity very well, and some respondents even volunteered through churches or religious organizations simplybecause manycharities have religious affiliations. Some members of nonreligious organizations also recognized that disadvan- taged nonbelievers might hesitate to obtain services from religious charities, es- pecially if the recipient perceivesanexpectation to attend the church or somehow become involved with the religious group. Felicia, amember of Houston Black Nonbelievers, said:

[A fellow HBN member] and Italked about the plightofthe homeless.You know,alot of these shelters around hereare Christian-based, youknow,it’sthat beat-you-over-the- head-till-you-become-a-Christian, whether youare or not,and he would like somethingsec- ular.Now if youwanna go to church or whatever, that’syour business,we’re not gonna proselytize. And he said, “I’mpretty surethere’ssome atheists out therebut they have to saythey’re Christian in order to getservices.” Isaid yeah, I’mpretty surethereare.

Not onlyare secular charities importantinthatthey provide nonbelievers in need aplace to go withoutreligious stringsattached, but nonreligious organizations thatendorse charitable activity can alsomitigate the impression thatathe- ists are immoral or indifferent to helping other people. Forinstance, on our way to the Texas Secular Convention in Austin, Rose, an active memberofGHSS, spoke to me about aconversation she had with areligious acquaintance. After describingvolunteer work she had recentlycompleted, the acquaintance re- sponded, “Whydoyou bother volunteering if youdon’tbelieveinGod?” This gave Rose the opportunitytoexplain that nonbelievers can be moral individuals who enjoy helping others, with no promise of an afterlife in return. By volunteering specificallyaspart of anonreligious organization, nonbelievers are engaging in asort of secular activism thataims to dispel these negative assumptions (see Fazzino, Borer,and Abdel Haq 2014; Zuckerman 2014).

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM 128 Amanda Schutz

4.6 Spiritual

Finally, these organizations can be spiritual in nature, providingaplace where members can go to experience emotions traditionallyassociated with religion – like aweand self-reflection – wheredisbelief in the supernatural is not only acceptable (as it oftenisinUnitarian Universalist congregations), but expected. While “secular spirituality” might seem counterintuitive, there are asizable number of people in these organizations who feel thatthe idea is compatible with an atheist or humanist worldview.For example, when Iasked one of my respondents, Robert,ifhethoughttherewas room for spirituality in an atheistic worldview,hegavethis enthusiasticresponse:

When the light bulb burns out it’sgone, and it’ssad. Sort of. But it’salso kind of awesome because I’mnot gonna live forever.Igetthis one chancetoeat icecreamand be with people Iloveand check out sunsets and visit Canada, and it’sgreat.Isthereroom for spirituality?Yes. Imeditate, that helped me getoff drugs.There’sroomtohold someone’shand and say, youknow,I’mjust thankful you’re in my life and Ireallyloveyou and I’mreally thankful you’re my friend, I’mthankful you’re my sister,I’mthankful for all these different things…if that’sprayer, then that’sprayer.… And there’salso roomfor beingcrass and there’sroom for the banal as well. The sacredand the profane. Ineed both of those things. Ineed comedyclubs where Ican go and shout obscenities,and Ineed moments were Ican reflect on just how awesome it is that Iexist.

Though Robert and several other respondents spoke of spiritualityinawaythat did not conflict with their non-belief,most of them did not actuallyattend events that specificallycatered to spiritual nonbelievers. Indeed, of all the typesdescri- bed here, spiritual events struggled the most to maintain acritical mass of nonbelievers to justify continuingmeetings. One group in Houston dedicated to secular spirituality, Spiritual Naturalists, operated on and off for several years. They resumed operations in the form of abi-weeklymeditation session and philoso- phytalkinMarch of 2015,onlytodisband four months later,claiming that in- stead of this “official organization” the group should have focused on allowing a “grassroots community to emerge organically.” The group now operates via newsletters and amailing list,announcing events of interest in the Houston area and allowing members to connect on their own terms. This lack of participation maybedue to the personal meanings that re- spondentsattached to the idea of spirituality.Infact,research has suggested that while people interpret religiosity as incorporating the institutional aspects associated with religious belief, they interpret spirituality as being more individ- ualistic (Zinnbauer et al. 1997); secular spirituality maybeinterpreted similarly. Not all nonbelievers are comfortable using the term “spirituality,” and it seems to

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM Organizational Variation in the American Nonreligious Community 129 be an idiosyncratic concept in thatits meaningvaries from individual to individual. Some nonbelievers associated spirituality with meditation, and chose to meditate on their own terms (some with ameditation group, or even at aBud- dhist temple)asopposed to specificallymeditating with other nonbelievers. When my interview respondents spoke of spirituality and Iasked them to ex- plain what they meant when they used the word, they tended to define it either in terms of mindfulness and awareness, such as arealization of being apart of “something biggerthanourselves” (usuallydefined in aliteral, scientific way, i.e., “nature” or “the universe”), or adesire to strive towardself-improvement. Zuckerman (2014) coined the term “awe-ism” to describe feelingsofwonder that several of my own respondents expressed.

5Conclusion

During her talk at Rice University,PennyEdgell suggested that publicattitudes towardnonbelievers will be difficult to swayuntil the full rangeofdiversityin the nonreligious community is exposed. Americans make broad, negative assumptions about nonbelievers (whichhavenot greatlyimproved since the first wave of the American Mosaic Project in 2003), viewing them as immoral and un-American. Theseperceptions persist,despite the fact thatpeople who claim them do not reportpersonally knowing anyone who does not believeinGod (Edgell et al. 2006); thus, the stigma attachedtoatheismoften goes unchal- lenged. People mayassumethatnonreligious organizations exist solelyfor the purpose of criticizingreligion – in fact,Ispoke to several nonbelievers who also made these assumptions about nonreligious groups before attendingthem- selves. Although these organizations do provide nonbelievers an outlet for vent- ing frustrations about the prevalence of religion in everydaylife, Iwitnessed rel- atively little outright hostility toward religious individuals. Manyrespondents reported harboring no ill feelingstowardbelievers,some acknowledgedthe good thatreligious communities can do, and afew even empathized with those who do believeinGod.Researchthat exposes the diversity of beliefs,behaviors, and values among the nonreligious (like that described throughout this volume) has the potential to changenegative perceptions held by the general Americanpublic. This chapter is derivedfrom alargerproject focusing on this diversity in nonreligious communities,includingwhether individuals with certain preferences or experiencesare drawntoone type of group over another; the role organizations playinhelping individuals construct and managetheir personal identities; and whether organizational involvement helps to instill aset of positive beliefs, val-

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM 130 Amanda Schutz ues, or characteristics that accompanies what it means to be anonbeliever.Ialso suggest thatindividuals can shift and alter the characteristics of the organizations they join. In aspan of onlyeight months, Isaw these organizations grow and dissolve and change. Much like with individuals,organizational identity is not static. In fact,some organization theorists suggest that organizations need to be more flexible than individuals in how they define themselvesbecause they must be able to adapt quicklyinorder to survive precarious social,political, or economic conditions (Gioia 1998;Gioia, Schultz, and Corley2000). The Hu- manists of Houston provides agood example of such ashift.Since coming under new leadership in 2015,HOH has become amulti-faceted organization, offering its own social, educational, political,and charitable activities, and co- sponsoringorpromotingevents hosted by nearlyall other nonreligious organizations in the Houston area(for more on how nonreligious organizations can support one another,see Fazzino and Cragun, this volume). While Icategorize HOH as an educational organization, as its most popular events fall under this umbrella, the organization’sshifting focus on building ahumanist community – that is, aclose-knit group of coreactive members – means HOH could be shift- ing its most salient identity towardbecomingacommunal organization, rather than apredominatelyeducational one. The organizational types described aboveserveanimportant purpose in nonreligious communities,especiallytothose individuals who have lost their faith and left their own religious communities (Fazzino 2014). Nonreligious organizations are very much like religious organizations in the functions they provide their members.Religious organizations have historicallyprovided aspace for their members to socialize, learn new things, engageinpolitical discourse, volunteer,reflect and meditate, and build enduringrelationships.Ofcourse, religious organizations are not the onlyway to meet these needs and goals (nor are nonreligious organizations the onlyalternative), but they have arguablybeen the most successful. Providing aspace for nonbelievers to have these fundamental human experiencesisvital, especiallyinasociety that overwhelmingly values the religious ethos. Despite religion’sdeclininginfluenceasasocial institution over otherareas of social life, scholars recognize that it remains significant in Americansociety.Nonreligious organizations like thosedescribed in this chapter will likelycontinue to grow unless (or until) religion becomes such atrivial part of everydaypublic life that nonreligious organizations – that are nonreligious by design – no longer need to exist.

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM Organizational Variation in the American Nonreligious Community 131

Bibliography

Albert, Stuart, Blake E. Ashforth, and Jane E. Dutton. 2000. “Organizational Identity and Identification: Charting New Waters and Building New Bridges.” The Academyof Management Review 25 (1): 13–17. Albert, Stuart, and David A. Whetten. 1985. “Organizational Identity.” Research in OrganizationalBehavior 7: 263–295. Amarasingam, Amarnath, ed. 2010. Religion and the New Atheism: ACritical Appraisal. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. Ashforth, BlakeE., Kristie M. Rogers, and Kevin G. Corley.2011. “Identity in Organizations: Exploring Cross-Level Dynamics.” Organization Science 22 (5): 1144–1156. Bagg, Samuel, and David Voas. 2010. “The Triumph of Indifference: Irreligion in British Society.” In Atheism and Secularity,Volume 2: Global Expressions,edited by Phil Zuckerman, 91–111. SantaBarbara, CA:Praeger. Baker,Joseph O’Brian, and BusterSmith. 2009. “None TooSimple: Examining Issues of Religious Nonbelief and Nonbelonginginthe United States.” Journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion 48 (4): 719–733. Baker,Joseph O.,and Buster G. Smith. 2015. American Secularism: Cultural Contours of Nonreligious Belief Systems. New York: New York UniversityPress. Brubaker,Rogers, and Frederick Cooper.2000. “Beyond ‘Identity.’” Theory and Society 29 (1): 1–47. Cadge, Wendy and Elaine HowardEcklund. 2007. “Immigration and Religion.” Annual Review of Sociology 33: 359–379. Campbell, Colin. 2013 [1971]. TowardaSociologyofIrreligion. IntroductionbyLois Lee, with Stephen Bullivant and Christopher R. Cotter.York, UK: Alcuin Academics. Cimino, Richard, and Christopher Smith. 2014. Atheist Awakening: Secular Activismand Community in America. Oxford, UK: OxfordUniversityPress. Cotter,Christopher R. 2015. “Without God yetNot Without Nuance: AQualitative Study of Atheism and Non-religion Among Scottish University Students.” In Atheist Identities – Spacesand Social Contexts,edited by Lori G. Beamanand Steven Tomlins, 171–193. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Cragun,RyanT., BarryKosmin, Ariela Keysar,Joseph H. Hammer,and Michael Nielsen. 2012. “On the Receiving End: Discrimination towardthe Non-Religious in the United States.” Journal of ContemporaryReligion 27 (1): 105–127. Doane, Michael J. and Marta Elliott. 2015. “Perceptions of Discrimination Among Atheists: Consequences forAtheist Identification, Psychologicaland Physical Well-Being.” PsychologyofReligion and Spirituality 7(2): 130–141. Dutton, Jane E., and Janet M. Dukerich. 1991. “Keeping an Eyeonthe Mirror: Image and Identity in Organizational Adaptation.” The AcademyofManagement Journal 34 (3): 517 – 554. Edgell, Penny,Joseph Gerteis, and DouglasHartmann. 2006. “Atheists as ‘Other’:Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society.” American Sociological Review 71 (2): 211–234. Edgell, Penny,Joseph Gerteis, Evan Stewart, and DouglasHartmann. 2016. “Atheists and Other Cultural Outsiders: Moral Boundaries and the Non-Religious in the United States.” Social Forces 95 (2): 607–638.

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM 132 Amanda Schutz

Eller,Jack David. 2010. “What Is Atheism?” In Atheism and Secularity,Volume 1: Issues, Concepts,and Definitions,edited by Phil Zuckerman, 1–18. SantaBarbara, CA:Praeger. Fazzino, Lori L. 2014. “Leaving the Church Behind: Applying aDeconversion Perspective to Evangelical Exit Narratives.” Journal of ContemporaryReligion 29 (2): 249–266. Fazzino, Lori L., Michael Ian Borer,and Mohammed Abdel Haq. 2014. “The New Moral Entrepreneurs:Atheist Activism as Scripted and Performed PoliticalDeviance.” In The Death and Resurrection of Deviance:CurrentIdeas and Research,edited by Michael Dellwing, Joseph A. Kotarba, and Nathan W. Pino, 168–191. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gagne, Patricia, RichardTewksbury,and DeannaMcGaughey. 1997. “Coming Out and Crossing Over: Identity Formation and Proclamation in aTransgender Community.” Gender and Society 11 (4): 478–508. Galaskiewicz, Joseph, and SondraBarringer. 2012. “Social Enterprises and Social Categories.” In Social Enterprises: An OrganizationalPerspective,edited by Benjamin Gidron and Yeheskei Hasenfeld,47–70. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. García,Alfredo, and Joseph Blankholm. 2016. “The Social ContextofOrganized Nonbelief: County‐Level Predictors of Nonbeliever Organizations in the United States.” Journal for the Scientific StudyofReligion. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jssr.12250/ab stract (accessed June28, 2016). Gervais, WillM., Azim F. Shariff, and AraNorenzayan. 2011. “Do YouBelieveinAtheists? Distrust Is Central to Anti-Atheist Prejudice.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101 (6): 1189–1206. Gioia, DennisA.1998. “From Individual to Organizational Identity.” In Identity in Organizations: Building Theory Through Conversations,edited by David A. Whetten and Paul C. Godfrey,17–32. Thousand Oaks, CA:SagePublications. Gioia, DennisA., Majken Schultz, and Kevin G. Corley.2000. “Organizational Identity,Image, and Instability.” The AcademyofManagement Review 25 (1): 63–81. Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes of the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon &Schuster,Inc. Guenther,KatjaM.2014. “Bounded by Disbelief: How Atheists in the UnitedStates Differentiatethemselves from Religious Believers.” Journal of ContemporaryReligion 29 (1): 1–16. Guenther,KatjaM., KerryMulligan, and Cameron Papp. 2013. “From the Outside In: Crossing Boundaries to Build CollectiveIdentity in the New Atheist Movement.” Social Problems 60(4): 457 – 475. Hatch, MaryJo, and MajkenSchultz. 1997. “Relations Between Organizational Culture, Identity,and Image.” European Journal of Marketing 31 (5/6): 356–365. Hout, Michael, and Claude S. Fischer.2002. “Why MoreAmericans HaveNot Religious Preference:Politics and Generations.” American Sociological Review 67 (2): 165–190. Hsu, Greta,and Michael T. Hannan. 2005. “Identities, Genres, and Organizational Forms.” Organization Science 16 (5): 474–490. Hunsberger,Bruce E., and Bob Altemeyer.2006. Atheists: AGroundbreaking Studyof America’sNonbelievers. Amherst,NY: Prometheus Books. Klineberg, Stephen L. 2016. “Thirty-five Years of the Kinder Houston AreaSurvey: Tracking Responses to aChanging America.” Rice UniversityKinder Institute for Urban Research.

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM Organizational Variation in the American Nonreligious Community 133

http:// kinder.rice.edu/uploadedFiles/Center_for_the_Study_of_Houston/53067_Rice_Hous tonAreaSurvey2016_Lowres.pdf (accessed May 19, 2016). LeDrew,Stephen. 2013. “Discovering Atheism: Heterogeneity in Trajectories to Atheist Identity and Activism.” SociologyofReligion 74 (4): 431–453. Lee, Lois. 2012. “Research Note:Talking About aRevolution: Terminology forthe New Field of Non-religion Studies.” Journal of ContemporaryReligion 27 (1): 129–139. Lee, Lois. 2015. Recognizing the Non-religious: Reimagining the Secular. Oxford,UK: Oxford UniversityPress. Owens, Timothy J. 2003. “Self and Identity” In Handbook of Social Psychology,edited by John Delamater,205–232. New York: Kluwer Academic/PlenumPublishers. Pattillo-McCoy,Mary. 1998. “Church CultureasaStrategy of Action in the Black Community,” American Sociological Review 63 (6): 767–784. Pinn, Anthony B. 2014. Writing God’sObituary: How AGood MethodistBecameanEven Better Atheist. Amherst, NY: PrometheusBooks. Ritchey,Jeff.2009. “‘One Nation Under God’:Identity and ResistanceinaRuralAtheist Organization.” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 21 (2): 1–13. Silver,Christopher F.,Thomas J. ColemanIII, Ralph W. Hood Jr., and Jenny M. Holcombe. 2014. “The Six Types of Nonbelief: AQualitative and Quantitative Study of Type and Narrative.” Mental Health, Religion &Culture 17 (10): 990–1001. Smith, Jesse M. 2011. “Becoming an Atheist in America: Constructing Identity and Meaning from the RejectionofTheism.” SociologyofReligion 72 (2): 215–237. Smith, Jesse M. 2013. “Creating aGodless Community: The CollectiveIdentity Work of ContemporaryAmerican Atheists.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 52 (1): 80–99. Steptoe, Tyina L. 2016. Houston Bound: Cultureand Color in aJim Crow City. Oakland, CA: UniversityofCalifornia Press. Stryker,Sheldon, and Peter J. Burke.2000. “The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory.” Social PsychologyQuarterly 63 (4): 284–297. Tomlins, Steven. 2015. “ACommon Godlessness:ASnapshot of aCanadian University Atheist Club,Why Its Members Join, and What That Community Means to Them.” In Atheist Identities – Spaces and Social Contexts,edited by Lori G. Beamanand Steven Tomlins, 117–136. Cham,Switzerland: Springer. Whetten, David A. 1998. “Preface: Why Organizational Identity and Why Conversations?” In Identity in Organizations:Building Theory Through Conversations,edited by David A. Whetten and Paul C. Godfrey,vii–xi. Thousand Oaks, CA:SagePublications. Zinnbauer,Brian J., Kenneth I. Pargament, Brenda Cole, Mark S. Rye,Eric M. Butter,Timothy G. Belavich, Kathleen M. Hipp, Allie B. Scott, and Jill L. Kadar. 1997. “Religion and Spirituality: Unfuzzying the Fuzzy.” Journal for the Scientific StudyofReligion 36 (4): 549–564. Zuckerman, Phil. 2009. “Atheism, Secularity,and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter NegativeStereotypes and Assuptions.” Sociology Compass 3(6): 949–971. Zuckerman, Phil. 2012a. Faith No More: Why People Reject Religion. New York: Oxford UniversityPress. Zuckerman, Phil. 2012b. “Contrasting Irreligious Orientations: Atheism and Secularity in the USAand Scandinavia.” Approaching Religion 2(1): 8–20.

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM 134 Amanda Schutz

Zuckerman, Phil. 2014. Living the Secular Life: New Answers to Old Questions. New York: Penguin Group.

Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:15 PM