Sociology of Religion Advance Access published August 31, 2016 SociologyofReligion:AQuarterlyReview2016,0:01–22 doi:10.1093/socrel/srw031 “I Think Some People Need Religion”: The Social Construction of Nonreligious Moral Identities J.E. Sumerau* and Ryan T. Cragun UniversityofTampa D o w n lo In this article, we examine moral identity construction among nonreligious people. Based on 30 in- ad e daelypztehsinomterevwieawysswniothnrneolingiroeulisgipoeuospAlemmeariycauntisliuzenathffieilriaetxedpewriietnhcseescuwlaitrhmreolivgeiomnenintosorgcaientyizatotiodnesfi,nweenoann-- d from religion as a sign of value, worth, and character. Specifically, we demonstrate how our respondents h ttp drewupontheirchildhoodandcurrentexperiencewithreligiousotherstoconstructnonreligousmoral ://s identitiesby(1)definingreligionasconcernedwithconformityandobedienceratherthanmorality,(2) o c highlightingprejudicialassumptionsreligiouspeoplepromoteaboutnonreligiouspeople,and(3)charac- rel.o terizinginteractions withreligious people as a mechanism that ledthemto seekmeaning intheirlives x fo fromothersources.Inconclusion,wedrawoutimplicationsforunderstanding(1)thesocialconstruc- rd jo tionofnonreligiousmoralidentitiesand(2)somewayscurrentreligiousnormsmayserveasapathway u rn tononreligion. a ls Keywords: atheism/agnosticism/irreligion;identity;morality;socialization;religiouschange. .org b/ y g u Anemerginglineofresearchshowsnonreligiouspopulationsareexperiencing es t o considerable growth and becoming more visible in the contemporary United n S States (see, e.g., Kosmin et al. 2009; Cragun, Hammer, and Smith 2013; Baker ep te and Smith 2015). Implications of these studies include that nonreligious people m b e who identify as atheist draw on the “cultural toolkits” (Swidler 1986) of secular r 1 and religious cultures to establish creditable individual and collective identities , 20 1 (Guenther, Mulligan, and Papp 2013; Smith 2013a; Guenther 2014). They also 6 suggest that openly nonreligious—and especially atheist identified—people face considerable harassment, marginalization, and discrimination (see, e.g., Edgell, Gerteis, and Hartmann 2006; Hammer et al. 2012; Wallace, Wright, and Hyde 2014). While these studies have invigorated our understanding of religious *DirectcorrespondencetoJasonE.Sumerau,DepartmentofGovernment, History,andSociology, UniversityofTampa,Tampa,FL33606,USA.E-mail:[email protected] # The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association for the Sociology of Religion. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals. [email protected] 1 2 SOCIOLOGYOFRELIGION privilege and the ways atheists resist marginalization (Cimino and Smith 2014; LeDrew2015),weknowfarlessaboutthewaysnonreligiouspeoplemakesenseof religion in their construction of nonreligious selves (Guenther, Mulligan, and Papp 2013; Smith 2013b). How do nonreligious people unaffiliated with secular movements construct nonreligious identities, and what implications might their experience have for expanding sociological understandings of contemporary nonreligion? Although an emerging line of scholarship explores the ways members of mar- ginalized groups fashion creditable identities in relation to religion, they typically focus on the ways such groups “moralize” (McQueeney 2009)—or define as good, positive,andvaluable—religion(Wolkomir2006).Ifreligionmaybemoralizedor usedtosignifytheworthandvalueofpeoplewhoidentifyasreligious,however,it D mayalsobedemoralizedorusedtosignifytheworthandvalueofpeoplewhoiden- o w n tify as nonreligious. In the former case, as noted in previous studies (Sumerau lo a 2012), people emphasize the positive aspects of religion to suggest religion facili- de d tatestheestablishmentofvaluableselves.Inareciprocalfashion,thelattercasein- fro m volves people emphasizing negative aspects of religion to suggest the absence of h religionfacilitatestheformationofvaluableselves(Guenther2014).Althoughso- ttp://s ciologistshaveoutlinedmanywaysreligionmaybemoralizedinthecourseofpeo- oc re ple’sidentityformation,therehas,todate,beenverylittleresearchonprocessesof l.o x demoralization (Guenther, Mulligan, and Papp 2013). In this article, we attempt fo rd to answer the question: How do people demoralize religion in ways that facilitate jo u themoralizationofnonreligiousidentities? rna ls Weexaminethesequestionsthroughaninterviewstudyofself-identifiednon- .o rg religious Americansunaffiliated with pro-secular or atheist organizations (for how b/ y individuals who are affiliated with such organizations accomplish this, see g u e Guenther, Mulligan, and Papp 2013). Specifically, we analyze how these people, st o n responding to religious privilege embedded within American structural and inter- S e actional patterns (Barton 2012), constructed “moral identities” or identities that pte m testifytoourvalue,character,andworthasgoodpeople(Katz1975).Insodoing, b e we synthesize and extend analyses of nonreligious identity formation (see, e.g., r 1 , 2 Smith 2011; Zuckerman 2011; LeDrew 2013, 2015; Cimino and Smith 2014; 01 6 Guenther 2014; Lee 2015;) by demonstrating how nonreligious people may use prior and current experiences with religion to “moralize” (McQueeney 2009) or “normalize” (Warner 1999) nonreligious selves. It is not our intention, however, togeneralizeourfindingstothelargernonreligiouspopulation.Rather,weusethe datafromthesecasestoelaboratestrategiesofmoralidentityworkpeoplemayuse to define contemporary religion as a moral justificationfor becoming nonreligious (see also Schwalbe et al. 2000). We encourage other researchers to extend our findings by gathering data from more robust samples or samples from other coun- tries around the world. Additionally, we believe scholars could focus on specific nonreligious populations—those who come from various religious backgrounds or no religious background—or those whose identities intersect with other minority MORALIDENTITYCONSTRUCTIONAMONGNONRELIGIOUSPEOPLE 3 identities (e.g., LGBTQþas well as nonreligious) to see whether our sensitizing conceptsapplywiththesegroupsaswell. Inthisarticle,wedrawonSymbolicInteractionisttraditionsexploringtheso- cial construction and maintenance of moral identities ([]Katz 1975). Rather than seekingtoexplicitlydefinemoralityasoneormorecharacteristics,suchstudiesex- plorethewayspeopleconstructsomeidentitiesassignsofcharacter,value,worth, and positive social standing (Kleinman 1996). Since morality, like any other so- cially constructed description of human activity (Goffman 1959), may mean a widevarietyofthingswithinvariedcontexts,times,andpopulations,suchstudies focusonstrategieswherebypeopleseektodefinethemselvesandothersasgoodor valuablemembersofagivensocialworld(Sumerau2012).Insteadofseekingtoas- certainaspecificformofmorality,weoutlinestrategieswherebynonreligiouspeo- D plemaydefinethemselvesinwaysthattestifytotheirworth,value,andcharacter. o w n In so doing, we outline “generic processes” (Schwalbe et al. 2000)—or common lo a ways of doing—people may use in a wide variety of settings wherein they seek to de d moralizenonreligionbydemoralizingreligion. fro m h ttp ://s THESOCIALCONSTRUCTIONOFNONRELIGION oc re l.o x In recent years, sociologists have demonstrated the emergence of expanding fo rd nonreligious populations and newly formed nonreligious movements throughout jo u the American sociopolitical landscape (see, e.g., Blankholm 2014; Cimino and rna ls Smith2014; Cragun2014; BakerandSmith2015).Ratherthana new socialfor- .o rg mation, however, nonreligious populations, communities, and movements have b/ y existed throughout American history (see Warren 1966; Baker and Smith 2015; g u e LeDrew 2015). Further, such groups have long sought to destabilize the influence st o n of religion in America by appealing to rational and scientific conceptions of S e knowledge while seeking to dispel religious bigotry and superstition (Cimino and pte m Smith 2007, 2014). What has changed in contemporary times, however, is the b e amount of attention nonreligious individuals and groups receive from scholarly, r 1 , 2 political,religious,andmediaoutlets,andtheopportunitiesformobilizingnonreli- 01 6 giouscollectiveactionvianewtechnologiesandexpandedrecognitionoftheuse- fulness of nonreligious forms of knowledge (Zuckerman 2011; Smith and Cimino 2012).Infact,studiessuggestunderstandingtheroleofreligioninsocietylikelyre- quiresexaminingthesocialconstructionofnonreligion(seeWallace,Wright,and Hyde2014;LeDrew2015;Lee2015). Examining the social construction of nonreligion requires analyzing the ways people construct and signify nonreligious selves. Following LeDrew (2013, 2015), thisprocessmayinvolvemany pathwayswhereby peopledepartreligiousselfhood fornonreligiousidentities.Someofthesepeoplemayhaveneverexperienced“in- terpersonal”(e.g.,familial,religiousorganization,orpeergroupbased)religiousso- cializationandthusneverclaimedreligiousselves,thoughmostdid.Likewise,the growingnumberofAmericansraisedoutsideofreligion(Merino2011)maynever 4 SOCIOLOGYOFRELIGION haveexperiencedstructural(e.g.,governmental,educational,orpublicbased)reli- gioussocialization,thoughmostAmericanshave.Forthosewhodidexperiencein- terpersonal and structural socialization, their life courses can result in shifts back and forth between religious and nonreligious selves (see also Smith 2013a). Whereas the pathways whereby people construct nonreligious selves may vary in relation to socialization experiences within interlocking systems of racial, class, gender,andsexualinequality,Smith(2013b)notesallsuchpathwaysaimtoestab- lish moral or positive selfhood without religion (see also Zuckerman 2011; Guenther,Mulligan,andPapp2013;Guenther2014). Making sense of the social construction of nonreligion, however, also requires awareness of the position of religion in contemporary American society (see, e.g., Hammer et al. 2012; Hammer, Cragun, and Hwang 2013; Wallace, Wright, and D Hyde 2014).Even though there is no empiricalreason for linking religion (or any o w n otherideologicalsystem)withmorality,theassumptionthatmoralpeoplearereli- lo a gious and that religion provides a moral gauge for society pervades interactional de d (Barton 2012) and structural (Heath 2012) assumptions and norms throughout fro m contemporary American society (see also Heiner 1992; Edgell, Gerteis, and h Hartmann2006).Asaresult,religionisgrantedtheprivilegeofservingasamoral ttp://s yardstickwherebyAmericansmayinterpretthecharacterofothersregardlessofthe oc re actions of the people in question (Barton 2012). As such, all nonreligious people, l.o x like the ones at the heart of this study, may feel the need to find ways to redefine fo rd morality if they hope to resist marginalization via religious means (Smith 2011; jo u Guenther2014). rna ls Historically, one strategy available to subordinated groups seeking to dispel .o rg the moral authority of dominant groups involves emphasizing the negative or op- b/ y pressive activities of such groups (see, e.g., Yip 1997; Collins 2005; Schrock and g u e Schwalbe 2009). Since dominant groups are often granted authority regardless of st o n theiractualbehaviors(Schwalbeetal.2000),subordinategroupsmaysimplypoint S e out or make known the backstage realities and discriminatory actions that domi- pte m nantgroupsrelyuponfortheirsocialelevation(seealsoGoffman1963).Attimes, b e subordinates may accomplish this by engaging in “oppositional identity work”— r 1 , 2 transforming negative labels applied to subordinates into evidence of creditable 01 6 selvesbysubvertingdominantnotionsofmorality(SchwalbeandMason-Schrock 1996). Previous research has documented strategies of oppositional identity work in many social contexts. Some of the gay and lesbian Christians in McQueeney’s (2009:167)studyoflesbian,gay,andstraight-but-affirmingchurches,e.g.,“moral- ized” their sexual identities by defining religious notions of sexual morality as the result of human prejudice and ignorance disconnected from the love of God. As onegaymannoted:“That’s what this churchis allabout. Because society hasop- pressedusforsolong,wefinallyhadenoughandstartedaplaceofourownwhere nobody can tell us we’re not God’s children, we are God’s children, y’all, and I venture to say that we might even be God’s chosen ones.” Similarly, researchers have shown how racial minorities (Anderson 2000), poor and working class MORALIDENTITYCONSTRUCTIONAMONGNONRELIGIOUSPEOPLE 5 people (Kusenbach 2009), transgender people (Schilt 2011), and cisgender women(Ezzell2009)subvertdominantdepictionsofthemasinferiorbyhighlight- ingpositivecharacteristicsoftheirselvesandexperiences.Ineachcase,subordina- tes demoralize dominant assumptions and beliefs by redefining these assertions as unwarrantedandthemselvesassociallyvaluable. Like McQueeney’s (2009) study noted above, researchers have also docu- mented many ways people explicitly engage in oppositional identity work to sig- nify their worth, value, morality, and character as “good” people. Specifically, these studies haveshown how subordinates create“moralidentities” byemphasiz- ing,e.g.,caringandcompassionintheirvolunteerwork(Holden1997),effortsto combat social inequalities in religious traditions (Sumerau 2012), emotional and instrumentalservicestheyprovidetoothers(Deeb-Sossa 2007),and “alternative” D approaches to helping and caring for others (Kleinman 1996). Whether they o w n stressed thesocialvalueoftheireffortsortheresultsoftheir work,peopleineach lo a ofthesestudiesemphasizedpositiveaspectsoftheirlivestosignifymoralselves. de d Studiesofthenonreligious,however,havegenerallylimitedtheirfocustothe fro m experiences of atheists (but see Zuckerman 2011) and individuals affiliated with h pro-secular organizations (Guenther 2014; Guenther, Mulligan, and Papp 2013; ttp://s Hunsberger2006;Pasquale2010).Consideringthatatheistsmakeuponlyaround oc re 10 percent of the nonreligious population (see Kosmin et al. 2009; alternatively, l.o x seeBakerandSmith2015),thisleavesthebulkofnonreligiousidentityformation fo rd unexplored at present. Even so, some of these studies (Smith 2011; Guenther, jo u Mulligan, and Papp 2013; Guenther 2014) suggest atheists wrestle with socially rna ls constructedversionsofmoralworth,andseektodisentanglemoralityfromreligion .o rg in their identity work processes (see also Cragun 2014). Guenther, Mulligan, and b/ y Papp (2013), in a study focused on members of an organized atheist group, found g u e that themembers of that group used four core strategies to position themselves in st o n opposition to religious people: (1) they constructed religious people as a threat to S e individualatheists;(2)theyconstructedreligionandreligiouspeopleasathreatto pte m society; (3) they argued that religious and atheistic worldviews were oppositional; b e and (4) they characterized religious believers as inferior to atheists. In many ways r 1 , 2 ourstudyissimilartothatofGuentheretal.,thoughourfindingsdifferslightly,as 01 6 wewillnoteinthediscussionbelow. Additionally,insteadoffocusingspecificallyonatheism,thepresentstudyex- plorestheoppositionalidentityworkofnonreligiouspeopleunaffiliatedwithsecu- larmovementsororganizationswhoidentifyinvariedways(e.g.,atheist,agnostic, spiritualbutnonreligious,noreligion,freethought,andhumanist)withspecificat- tention to the ways they demoralize religion to signify nonreligious moral identities. Rather than focusing on distinctions between nonreligious labels (i.e., agnos- tic versus atheist) or between regional cultures (i.e., northwestern nonreligious peopleversussoutheasternnonreligiouspeople),however,wefollowotheridentity workscholars(SchwalbeandMason-Schrock1996)inoutliningthesharedstrate- giessuchvariedgroupsmayengageintomake(moral)senseofnonreligionwithin 6 SOCIOLOGYOFRELIGION a religious social context (McQueeney 2009; Sumerau 2012). In so doing, our analysisbroadensexistingunderstandingsofnonreligiousidentityformationwhile revealing the ways previous research into moral and oppositional identity work mayprovide“sensitizingconcepts”(Blumer1969)capableofguidingfurtherelab- orationofthesocialconstructionofreligion,nonreligion,andmoralvalueincon- temporary American society. While this strategy allows us to tease out generic or sharedstrategiespeoplefromvariousregionsandidentificationsmayutilizeintheir identity work efforts (Schwalbe and Mason-Schrock 1996), it also may only set thestagefornuancedcomparisonsofvariationwithinandbetweenthemanytypes ofnonreligiouspeopleandplacesofnonreligiousactivitywheresuchendeavors— withvariedcontentasaresultofregional,identification,andothersourcesofvari- ationanddistinction—maytakeplaceonabroaderscale.Ouranalysiscanbeseen D as another contribution for comparing and contrasting processes of demoralizing o w n religionandmoralizingnonreligioninvariedsettings,contexts,andpopulations. lo a d e d fro m DATAANDMETHODS h ttp ://s o Data for this study derive from 30 semi-structured interviews with self- c re identifiednonreligiouspeopleintheUnitedStateswhowereunaffiliatedwithany l.o x pro-secularoratheistorganizations.Unlikereligiousaffiliatesandaffiliatesofsecu- ford lar or atheist organizations, finding nonreligious individuals who are unaffiliated jou rn withpro-secularoratheistorganizationstoparticipateininterviewsischallenging a ls because they do not congregate; there is no location where you can go and find .org them. As a result, finding such individuals required some creative thinking and a b/ y rather unorthodox methodological approach for gathering a sample. To begin gu e s with,thesecondauthorconstructedabasicdemographicsurvey.Alinktothesur- t o n vey was posted on the craigslist.org1 websites of several large cities in the United S e p States (two in the Northeastern USA, two in the Southeastern USA, one in the te m Midwest,andtwointheWesternUSA;thecitieswerechoseninordertoincrease be regional diversity among participants). The advertisement indicated that the re- r 1, 2 0 searcherswerelookingforparticipantsfora sociologyresearch project. They were 1 6 told, “Participation in the project is based on your answers to a short survey. In otherwords,youneedtotakethesurveyfirsttoseeifyouwillbeselectedtopartic- ipate in the full project.” The advertisement then noted that those who were se- lected to participate based upon their survey responses would be paid for participating (participants were paid $50 for participating in an interview). The 1According to a Pew Research Center (Pew Internet & American Life Project 2009) study,CraigslistusersaresimilartoInternetusersmoregenerally.Atthattime,49percentof onlineadultsusedonlineclassifieds. Youngerpeople (particularly the25–44age-group)were morelikelytouseonlineclassifiedads,aswereindividualswithsomecollegeeducationandin- dividualslivinginurbanandsuburbanareas.Therewereonlyslightdifferencesbetweenmen andwomeninhowoftentheyusedonlineclassifieds;menwereslightlymorelikelythanwere women. MORALIDENTITYCONSTRUCTIONAMONGNONRELIGIOUSPEOPLE 7 survey asked respondents for their email addresses in order for the researchers to followupwiththemtoinformthemwhetherornottheyqualifiedtoparticipatein thefullstudy. Thisapproachgenerated432responsestothesurvey.However,aftercleaning the survey for incomplete responses and missing data, 205 responses remained. Twocriteriawereusedforselectionintothesecondportionofthestudy.Thefirst wassurveyrespondentshadtoindicatetheyhadnoreligiousaffiliation.Ofthe205 completeresponsestothesurvey,73respondedtothequestion,“Whatisyourreli- gion,ifany?”withtheoption“None(noreligiousaffiliation,atheist,agnostic,hu- manist).” The second criteria for inclusion was that survey respondents not be affiliated with secular or atheist organizations. This was based on responses to the following question, “Do you affiliate with or belong to any pro-secular or atheist D organizations?” Response options were “Yes” or “No.” Of the 73 individuals who o w n reported no religious affiliation, 6 reported having an affiliation with a secular or lo a atheist organization and were therefore excluded from the study; 67 individuals de d metthecriteriaforinclusionintothestudy. fro m Before conducting interviews with the nonreligious individuals located via h thesurvey,theresearchersconductedfiveinterviewswithpersonalcontactswho ttp://s met the criteria for inclusion in order to test the interview guide. Those five in- oc re terviews are included among the 30 interviews described in this study. The re- l.o x maining 25 individuals who were interviewed were selected among the 67 fo rd individuals who met the inclusion criteria with a preference for individuals who jo u would createa diversesample of participants.Thus, preferencewasgivenfor the rna ls following groups as they were underrepresented in the survey sample: elderly in- .o rg dividuals, non-white individuals, and individuals with lower socioeconomic sta- b/ y tuses (i.e., no college degree or limited income). The grant that funded this g u e research2includedfundstoremunerateupto30participants.Closeto90percent st o n of the67 eligibleindividualswerecontactedbefore25 of themagreedtopartici- S e pate. Of the 30 interviews, 4 were conducted in person, 4 were conducted via pte m electronic chat (at the convenience of the participants), and the remaining 22 b e were conducted over the phone. Other than the electronic chat interviews, r 1 , 2 which were already typed, the remaining 26 interviews were recorded and 01 6 transcribed. Althoughthe second author sought to learnsome specific things about non- religiouspeople(e.g.,thecompositionoftheirsocialnetworks,definitionsofreli- gion and science, etc.), the interviews took a mostly conversational form (Berg and Lune 2011). Rather than fully unstructured or structured, questions primed respondentswithspecifictopics,whichallowedhimtogatherreactionsandthen probeforfurtherdetails.Inthismanner,hewasabletocaptureimpressions,atti- tudes, and stories about a variety of topics while also gaining more specific 2ThegrantwasarelativelysmallgrantthatwasinternaltotheUniversityofthefirsttwo authors.Theauthorsworkataprivate,nonsectarianuniversity.Wedonotbelievethereisa conflictofinterestbasedonthesourceofthegrantfunding. 8 SOCIOLOGYOFRELIGION information about religious and nonreligious meaning. He was able to target the conversationto reveal in-depth interpretations of prominent issues noted in sur- veysofnonreligiouscommunitiesandindividuals(BergandLune2011).Thein- terviewslastedbetween1and2h. It is important to note that the nonreligious people interviewed ran the gamut of self-identifications (e.g., atheists, Humanists, agnostics, Brights, etc.). Whereas previous studies of the nonreligious have focused primarily on atheist- identified subjects and subjects active in some form of secular organization (cf. Guenther 2014; Guenther, Mulligan, and Papp 2013; Hunsberger 2006; Pasquale2010;thoughseeLee2015),oursampleextendsbeyondthissmallpro- portion of nonreligious people (cf. Cragun 2014; Langston, Hammer, and Cragun 2015). In so doing, as Table 1 reveals, we have gathered a more diverse D sample than the typically white, middle, and upper class, heterosexual popula- o w n tions found within atheist and secular movement groups (see Baker and Smith lo a 2015; Cimino and Smith 2014; Smith 2013a) that may allow for more elabora- de d tionofgenericorcommonstrategies(seeSchwalbeetal.2000)ofidentityforma- fro m tion common to differently situated nonreligious people (see also LeDrew 2013, h 2015). As such, our respondents’ construction of nonreligious moral identities ttp://s may reveal greater variation than previous studies in this area while showing oc re strategies common in nonreligious identity formation beyond atheist-identified l.o x experiences(butseeZuckerman2011). fo rd Our analysis developed in an inductive manner. Drawing on elements of jo u “grounded theory” (Charmaz 2006), the first author examined the content of rna ls the interviews in their entirety looking for recurring themes. In so doing, he es- .o rg tablishedasetofcodescapturingthewaysnonreligiouspeopletalkedaboutreli- b/ y gious experiences, which he shared with the second author. Recognizing that g u e respondentsarguedreligionwasnoplacetofindmoralitybasedontheseexperi- st o n ences, the first author went back through the data organizing these discussions S e into thematic categories. As a result, we created labels to capture the ways our pte m respondents suggested religious experience led them to embrace nonreligious b e selves. r 1 , 2 0 1 6 CONSTRUCTINGNONRELIGIOUSMORALIDENTITIES What follows is an analysis of the ways nonreligious people may use religious experiencestocreatenonreligiousmoralidentities.First,weexaminehownonreli- gious people discuss their early lives in ways that position them as either experts onreligionorpeoplewhoneverneededreligiontolivegoodlives.Then,weshow how they “demoralize” religion—and by extension moralize nonreligion—by mo- bilizing perceptions of religious practice, sharing religious assumptions about the nonreligious, and revealing experiences with religious people. While these strate- gies explicitly define religion as an inadequate source of morality for the respon- dents,theyalsoimplicitly“frame”(Goffman1974)nonreligionasamoralidentity MORALIDENTITYCONSTRUCTIONAMONGNONRELIGIOUSPEOPLE 9 TABLE1. DemographicsofInterviewParticipants %(n¼30) Gender Male 33.3 Female 66.7 Race/Ethnicity White 73.3 Black 13.3 Hispanic/White 13.3 Maritalstatus Married 30.0 Single,nevermarried 33.3 D o Cohabiting 20.0 w n Divorced 6.7 lo a d Other 10.0 ed Age fro m 18–30 33.3 h 3511––5700 5133..30 ttp://so c Sexualorientation rel.o Heterosexual 80.0 xfo Homosexual 10.0 rd jo Unknown 10.0 urn a Educationalattainment ls .o Lessthanhighschool 3.3 rg Highschooldiploma 6.7 by/ g Somecollege 46.7 u e s Bachelor’sdegree 20.0 t o n Graduatedegree 20.0 S e Unknown 3.3 pte m b e r 1 , 2 0 developedfromrecognitionofthesedeficiencies(seeSmith2011forasimilar“rec- 16 ognition”processamongatheistactivists). ConceptualizingSocialization SincereligiousinfluenceiscurrentlyembeddedthroughoutAmericaninterac- tional and structural patterns of activity (Barton 2012), it is not surprising that many nonreligious adults must make sense of the role of religion in their early lives.AsLeDrew(2013,2015)notes,religiousand irreligioussocializationcanfa- cilitate nonreligious selves in adult life (see also Merino 2011; Lee 2015). The nonreligious people we studied echoed this suggestion while revealing different paths religious and nonreligious socialization could facilitate. Further, they regu- larly—withandwithoutprompting—explainedtheirreligiousbackgroundpriorto 10 SOCIOLOGYOFRELIGION explainingtheirnonreligiousidentities.Asaresult,theyusedtheirreligiousback- grounds to create the backdrop for their current moral identities (McQueeney 2009). AssuggestedbyLeDrew(2013),oursamplewassplitbetweenpeoplewhoex- periencedreligiousupbringings(27outof30did,thoughthedegreetowhichreli- gionwasemphasizedvariedamong those27) and those whodidnot(3out of30; see Figure 1). In the former case, our respondents defined themselves as “experts” (i.e., social actors familiar with a structural form, see Goffman 1963; Guenther, Mulligan,andPapp2013;Guenther2014)oncontemporaryAmericanreligionby highlightingtheprominentrolesreligionplayedintheirfamiliesandexperiences. Similar to the ways African-Americans (Collins 2005), sexual minorities (Adams 2011),andtransgenderpeople(Sumerau,Schrock,andReese2013)oftenbecome D experts on racial, sexual, and gendered patterns that escape the notice of others, o w n ourrespondentssuggestedtheirreligiousbackgroundscombinedwiththeirnonre- lo a ligious perspectives allowed them to more easily see theproblems within religious de d traditions(seealsoGuenther,Mulligan,andPapp2013;Smith2013a).Whilewe fro m exploretheirobservationsinthenextsection,webeginbyoutliningthe“creden- h tials”(Goffman1963)theyofferedtoclaimexpertperspectivesonreligion. ttp://s Nonreligious people established themselves as capable evaluators of religious oc re morality by highlighting the religious credentials of the people who raised them. l.o x Theyimpliedhighlevelsofreligiositywithintheirownsocialization,whichfacili- fo rd tated their abilities to make sense of religion from the inside. As a heterosexual jo u white male named Gelkat3 noted: “My father was the superintendent of Sunday rna ls School.IwouldsayIwenttochurchregularlyfromasearlyasIcanremember.My .o rg mother was the head of an organization.” A white heterosexual woman named b/ y Alyshaadded: “I know I was baptized and this was in the first five to maybe eight g u e years of my life. My grandparents were Southern Baptist and pretty religious. In st o n fact, my grandfather played piano in the church.” A white heterosexual man S e namedDanfurthernoted:“Atonepoint,myDadwasabishop,whichisaleader- pte m shippositioninthereligion.So,verydevoutfamily.”Awhiteheterosexualwoman b e named Lenore added: “I have an uncle who is a pastor,” and a heterosexual man r 1 , 2 namedTomrecalled,“MyparentswereEvangelicalChristianandmyfatherwasa 01 6 pastor.” In fact, two of our respondents had once been missionaries. Rather than just average religious childhoods, our respondents noted familial credentials they suggestedmadethemfamiliarwiththeoperationofreligion. Atothertimes,theysignifiedreligiouscredentialsbynotingthe(usuallyrather high)activitylevelsoftheirfamilies.AsDanexplainedafterthequotationshared above: 3All names are pseudonyms. We asked participants to choose their own pseudonyms, whichiswhysomeofthepseudonymsemployedareratherunique.