Search News


Browse Archives

News

Not So Godless After All

October 9, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Listen to many critics of higher education, and you would think that faith had been long ago banished from the quad -- or at least all those quads not at places like Notre Dame or Liberty or Yeshiva.

It turns out though, that there are plenty of believers on college faculties. Professors may be more skeptical of God and religion than Americans on average, but academic views and practices on religion are diverse, believers outnumber atheists and agnostics, and plenty of professors can be found regularly attending religious services.

These are some of the findings of a national survey of professors at all types of institutions, conducted for a presentation sponsored by the Social Science Research Council. The survey was conducted and analyzed by two sociologists, Neil Gross of Harvard University and Solon Simmons of George Mason University.

In March, researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles released a study indicating that more than 80 percent of college professors consider themselves spiritual. The new study focuses more on religious belief -- whether professors believe in God, attend services, etc., and how they classify themselves within their faiths.

On the question of belief in God, the study notes the "common perception" that professors are atheists and suggests that this view is simply not true. The following statistics show how professors aligned themselves:

Professors and Belief in God

Positions of Belief % of Professors
I don't believe in God. 10.0%
I don't know whether there is a God and I don't believe there is any way to find out. 13.4%
I don't believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind. 19.6%
I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others.    4.4%
While I have my doubts, I feel that I do believe in God. 16.9%
I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it. 35.7%

While the study found no sector of higher education without believers, there are significant differences by type of institution and discipline. Faculty members at religious colleges made up about 14 percent of the sample in the survey and they were more likely to believe in God. While 52 percent of professors in non-religiously affiliated colleges believe in God either despite doubts or without doubt, 69 percent of those at religious colleges feel that way. Professors are most likely to be atheists or agnostics at elite doctoral institutions (37 percent) and less likely to be non-believers at community colleges (15 percent).

In terms of disciplines, professors in psychology and biology are the least likely to believe in God (about 61 percent in each field are atheists or agnostics), with mechanical engineering not far behind at 50 percent. Professors most likely to say that they have no doubt that God exists are in accounting (63 percent), elementary education (57 percent), finance (49 percent), marketing (47 percent) and nursing (44 percent).

The survey found a "surprisingly high" proportion -- 19 percent -- of the professoriate that identifies as "born-again Christian," and they are not restricted to religious colleges. While very few professors (about 1 percent) have this identity at elite doctoral institutions, the share at secular institutions over all is 17 percent.

Professors are much less likely than members of the public to see the Bible as the literal word of God, but many academics do see the Bible as having been inspired in some way by God. Six percent of professors view the Bible as the "word of God," 52 percent see it as "an ancient book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts," and 42 percent see it as "the inspired word of God."

The authors of the report note that Americans tend to over-report their attendance at religious services. But comparing data on the general public and professors, the authors write that significant numbers of academics do attend services regularly -- even if they represent a slightly smaller share than that of the general public with this inclination. Asked whether they attend services once a month or more, 49 percent of all Americans and 40 percent of professors said Yes. Professors at elite doctoral institutions were the least likely so have that answer.

While professors' responses indicated that they do take religion more seriously than their stereotype, they are likely to take positions counter to those of the religious right on some issues that involve the intersection of faith and politics. For example, 75 percent oppose religion in the public schools in the form of school prayer. And just over 84 percent disagree with a statement that intelligent design is a "serious scientific alternative" to evolution.

In their paper, Gross and Simmons write that their findings challenge a widely held narrative of the history of American higher education. From Harvard's founding in 1636, that story is one of religious institutions or ideas (Harvard was founded to train ministers) gradually becoming secular. It's not that Harvard (and many other institutions) haven't in fact abandoned their ties to religious groups or changed them, Gross and Simmons write. But the simple way that story is told -- particularly by those criticizing higher education -- "ignores many points of historical ambiguity, tension and conflict."

They write that their research suggests a need for more study of the differing attitudes about religion in subgroups of academe: the relatively more secular elite universities and the relatively more religious community colleges.

In addition, they write that having established that many professors do take religion seriously, it's time to study what that really means. "The fact that a higher proportion of professors are religious than the usual story of academic secularization would have us believe suggests that we need more research on the causal impact of professors' religious value commitments on the formation of their ideas," they write.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Not So Godless After All

  • Personal God?
  • Posted by Mark H on October 19, 2007 at 11:10am EDT
  • What do people mean when they say they believe in a higher power but not a personal God? Do they mean that God does not have a physical body? Or that he does not have a "mind" or a "personality" (e.g., that he can't reason, communicate, love, etc.)? And if the latter, then what exactly makes this Power "higher"?

    As far as people who believe that God may exist but that it's impossible to know whether God exists, again I ask: why? If there is a God, why couldn't he choose to reveal himself to some or all of us?

  • Religion on Campus
  • Posted by Joseph Duemer , Professor at Clarkson University on October 9, 2006 at 8:05am EDT
  • Well, I'll be damned. (No doubt.) I find it interesting that most of the believers are in schools of business, which is where most of the Republicans are, too. I wonder what that correlation means. Makes intuitive sense to me, though--the kind of Christianity I grew up with was mostly a form of accounting, with a strong marketing department.

  • Posted by Eveningsun at Small Public College on October 9, 2006 at 8:21am EDT
  • OK, so this study claims to have found that many faculty are religious believers. That does NOT necessarily mean it has "established that many professors do take religion seriously." I take religion seriously, and that is precisely why I am NOT a believer. Some of my believing colleagues, I suspect, have not thought this stuff through very seriously at all, and it may be their shallowness that allows them to believe. "Belief" and "taking religion seriously" might not be all that related. Come to think of it, measuring seriousness of religious belief by taking a poll is itself an instance of not taking religion seriously. It's a way of treating religion not as religion, not on its own terms, but as sociology.

  • Who's accusing who?
  • Posted by Tom McCool on October 9, 2006 at 9:15am EDT
  • Who is accusing higher education of being "God-less?" Is it the fundamentalist Christians who have hijacked the public's image of Christianity? I'm positive that group would claim that I - a post-modern, emergent, Christian whose view of the faith is shaped by writers such as McLaren, Borg Wright, Willard and others - am "God-less." What this survey proves is that higher education is not populated by fundamentalist, literalist evangelicals.

  • Posted by Larry on October 9, 2006 at 10:30am EDT
  • Tom has the best point. Nobody is seriously accusing higher education of being “godless.” On the other hand, nobody seriously thinks that B-schools are some sort of religious activity, where prayer is interlaced with attenuated versions of real subjects.

    My guess is that you could go to most houses of worship in the country, and ask the same questions, and most people would fall into the top three categories. This is good enough for most Americans. But, for some reason, for some people, it is not acceptable to say, “I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind.”

  • We are all believers
  • Posted by Yavo , Adventurer on October 9, 2006 at 10:50am EDT
  • Atheism and agnosticism are systems of belief, too. They merely put their trust in different conclusions. Even "godless" biologists and psychologists are believers. Even people who "take religion seriously" but don't believe in God are believers. We are all as "shallow" as everyone else, ultimately. Where we achive depth is in what those beliefs allow us or motivate us to do. I would like to see a survey that addresses what percentage of "believing" educators do more than claim adherence to some doctrine or other. I am a Christian, and to me, Christianity is a practice, not a mere "theism." This survey could be useful in combating certain forms of ignorance but there is still work to be done when it comes to understanding the religious commitments of people in higher education.

  • Error in the article?
  • Posted by Christopher Heard , Associate Professor of Religion at Pepperdine University on October 9, 2006 at 12:45pm EDT
  • About halfway through the article, this statement appears:

    Six percent of professors view the Bible as the “word of God,” 52 percent see it as “an ancient book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts,” and 42 percent see it as “the inspired word of God.”

    What's the difference between the unpopular "word of God" answer and the more popular "inspired word of God" answer? Those sound like the same category to me.

    On another note, that question doesn't seem to have nearly enough "granularity." Only three choices for "how you see the Bible" doesn't cover the ground enough to allow accurate representation of respondents' views. I would suspect that the 42% covers a broad range of attitudes, from "God dropped the King James Bible from heaven" to "stuff that religious people wrote a long time ago, motivated by their belief in God."

  • "Godless"
  • Posted by John F. DeFelice , Associate Professor of History at University of Maine at Presque Isle on October 9, 2006 at 12:45pm EDT
  • I would suggest the accusation of being "Godless" is a response to Ann Coulter's book of the same title. I took the time to read it and found it not worth the effort. It's the usual ideological propaganda from an expected right wing source full of bad science, stereotypes posing as research, and the usual Liberal bashing. If you are looking for a real analysis of what professors and liberals believe, this endless parade of strawmen is hardly useful.

  • Godless?
  • Posted by kgotthardt on October 9, 2006 at 12:45pm EDT
  • Hmmmm....well, first, there is a huge difference between believing in a God and believing in a religion. Many people who believe in a God of some kind do not believe in organized religion for personal and/or good reasons. (I know I fall into this category. If I were to be anything, it would be Unitarian, and some people say that isn't even a "real" religion.)

    Second, yes, there IS the perception that "the smart people" in higher ed are atheists, that believing anything spiritual (that cannot be scientifically proven) is an offense to logic, and some of this perception is taught within the institutions themselves. In varieties of courses, we study the birth of the modern, the historical move away from belief and towards industry, the advent of Darwinism, and world religion, all brought about by the educated who were not necessarily historically liberal or Democrats; it is easy for an undergraduate who has taken any history course at ANY institution to infer, "Hmmmmmmm....educated people don't believe in God." So it's not just evangelicals and/or "ignorant Plebes" who hold this perception. It's part of the stereotype that has evolved: "Oh, professors. They're just a bunch of liberal atheists."

    The problems is, of course, that this is a stereotype accounting even now for degrees of discrimination and anti-intellectualism. I think studies like the one conducted can help alleviate some of these stereotypes. We might also want to encourage more open discussion of professors' personal beliefs on campus, assuming this can be done in an accepting and safe environment, one in which there is no agenda for attempted conversion.

  • godless academy
  • Posted by h lune at William Paterson University on October 9, 2006 at 12:45pm EDT
  • Many good points in this discussion. The research actually reinforces something that most of us in the academy probably already knew - that the claim that higher ed had banished god or become anti-religious is a false marketing campaign that has more political than religious implications. If, to take one possible explanation, political christian fundamentalists have convinced the country or the media that academics have no 'values' then this research is only one small step towards a reality-based response to this organized campaign against higher ed.

  • Found my answer
  • Posted by Christopher Heard , Associate Professor of Religion at Pepperdine University on October 9, 2006 at 12:46pm EDT
  • In the actual research report, the three categories of "how you see the Bible" are described as follows:

    Using another question from the GSS, we asked respondents which statement comes closest to describing their feelings about the Bible: “The Bible is the actual wordof God and is to be taken literally, word for word”; “The Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, word for word”; or “The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by men.”

    I think there's a lot of middle ground between the second and third categories. (I'm also not happy with the "recorded by men wording, but that's a different topic.)

  • Nice critical thinking, Eveningsun
  • Posted by Prof B , Asst. Prof. at U of Science and Arts of Ok on October 9, 2006 at 1:10pm EDT
  • Wow, so your serious consideration has led you to the conclusion that scholars who disagree "have not thought this stuff through very seriously at all"? I suppose that in your opinion, if half the country would just think *harder*, we would only need one political party, too? Wish I knew which college you were with, so I could be sure not to send my children there.

  • Say what, Prof B?
  • Posted by Eveningsun at Small Public College on October 9, 2006 at 2:05pm EDT
  • Prof B, your post above suggested that I have come "to the conclusion that scholars who disagree 'have not thought this stuff through very seriously at all.'" What I actually wrote was that "SOME of my believing colleagues" have not thought their beliefs through very carefully. Do you think that's so far-fetched? And do you really think I'm claiming that all believers have not thought their beliefs through?

    That's a completely unwarranted leap. So is your contention that "I suppose that in your opinion, if half the country would just think *harder*, we would only need one political party." Actually, I think if more people thought harder, we'd have more than just two viable parties, and that people would more readily see through most political advertising, and that money would play less of a role in politics, which would all be good things. You've got my position precisely backward--and from there it's just a short step to maligning my college as well.

    A note for Yavo ("We are all believers"): It's true that from one perspective, "Atheism and agnosticism are systems of belief, too. They merely put their trust in different conclusions." But hey--from a distant enough perspective, one couldn't distinguish the earth from Jupiter, yet the difference we draw between them is worth preserving. I mean, I know which planet I'd rather live on. And of course, in the long run we are all dead. The point is that agnosticism and atheism are not "systems of belief" in any sense that is relevant to a poll predicated on distinguishing between the two.

    But enough. I've got to get back to work flunking Prof. B's children.

  • atheism = blind faith
  • Posted by quaker prof on October 9, 2006 at 2:25pm EDT
  • Agnosticism has always seemed to me to be a reasonable response to the lack of evidence at hand.

    Atheism, in contrast, is as much blind faith as any theism. Many atheists I've come across have had more faith in their belief system (in the absence of positive proof) than most theists I know. And the atheists can be very eage to "spread" their message.

  • when did religious come to equal "believe in God"?
  • Posted by a different view on October 9, 2006 at 2:25pm EDT
  • So, are Wiccan's "Godless" because they worship a Goddess? And what about belief in many gods and goddesses? Or animism, the idea of a universe populated by spiritual beings which are not deities but with which humans may interact?

    And what if I believe that Yahweh exists but choose not to worship him? How does believe in automatically become worship? Isn't what I do, as well as my understanding of the nature of the universe, significant? I am so tired of the unquestioned Judeo-Christian-Islamic assumptions in this sort of survey.

  • No surprises
  • Posted by Jack Trades on October 10, 2006 at 5:05am EDT
  • I think it's been pretty clear from the beginning of the recent "Godless Academia" campaigns that the point of contention was never really "religion" (its presence or absence on campus) at all--it was about the perceived presence or absence of conservative politics and evangelical/fundamentalist ideology on campus. The survey seems to suggest that most academics tend towards more moderate and nuanced understandings of both religion and politics, as one would expect from educated people.

    Fundamentalist literalism is a fringe belief that can't withstand the scrutiny of reason or scholarship. Most Christians are not fundamentalists and don't read the Bible as literal and unerring truth. Similarly, strongly conservative political ideologies are generally antithetical to the free inquiry and open dialogue that an academic life requires. So it's not surprising that such politics are under-represented in most universities (especially the elite ones).

    Like Fascism and Stalinism, "Falwellism," "intelligent design," and the Campus Crusade for Horowitz are historical/cultural curiosities that warrant _some_ serious study and debate, but they don't really offer much for educated people to embrace or affirm. Their attempts to be taken "seriously" in the academy and their accusations of bias are just so much ranting and misrepresentation by extremists who disavow their own marginal positions (they want to claim to speak for some "silent majority" that doesn't really exist).

  • Godless Professors?
  • Posted by Prof. R. Birt , Lectuerer at Coppin State Univ on October 10, 2006 at 8:05pm EDT
  • Having taught in numerous academic institutions for twenty years, the label "godless" has always struck me as simplistic, if not dishonest and/or politically interested. It simply didn't truthfully describe most of my collegues--at least not if godless meant atheistic or agnostic.
    However, most fellow academicians that I've known have also NOT suscribed to conventional religious beliefs, and certainly not to simplistic biblical literalism.
    The label godless has been used since at least the trial of Socrates (and Aristophanes's lampooing of the philosopher in THE CLOUDS) as a expression of opprobrium toward anyone who didn't uncritically accept traditional or conventional religious beliefs.
    You don't actually have to be an atheist--clearly Socrates and many other thinkers(e.g. Spinoza)were not. Simply being a thinker, a genuine thinker, and therefore unorthodox, suffices to get you labeled as godless.
    And as Prof Duemer noted, it is perhaps not coincidental that conventional religious believers are found so heavily in Business and related areas. These are unintellectual fields, areas that encourage a certain kind of intelligence as expertise, but not creative thought.
    So, it shouldn't be surprising that both atheistic and unconventional religous beliefs (lumped together as "godless" by unthinking religious and political conservatives) are more common among teachers in humanistic, social and natural scientific areas. If you're a thinker, you may not (or may) become an atheistic or agnostic. But you're not very likely to be or remain conventional very long.

  • Posted by Rob , Atheist & Agnostic belief systems? on October 10, 2006 at 9:05pm EDT
  • I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that atheism and agnoticisms are beliefs comparable to Christian or other religious belief systems.
    Atheism is (as etymology of word suggests) the ABSENCE of belief in God. But that absence of belief isn't a positive belief system like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc.
    Atheists include people as divergent in beliefs as Feuerbach, Marx, some thinkers of the Enlightenment, Bertrand Russel, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Nietzsche, Percy Shelly, Erich Fromm, and numerous others who share an absence of belief in God, but often little by way of things they believe in common. Feuerbach and Marx were materialists and atheists. The early Sartre and other atheistic existentialists rejected materialism.
    So those atheists actually didn't share a common belief system.
    Similar observations can be made concerning agnosticism. Agnosticism, is lack of belief that one knows (or even can know) whether God exists. Some of the men of the Enlightenment fit that description. Probably so did Protagoras. At certain points in his intellectual life Bertrand Russell was apparently an agnostic also.
    But not knowing whether god exists, or not knowing whether you can know, hardly constitutes a belief system.

    As to the Quaker professor's claim (if I understood him right) that agnosticism is more reasonable or tolerant than atheism, of that I'm unsure. That atheism is a belief system as irrational or intolerant as any form of traditional religious intolerance, is again open to question. Indeed as a general description of atheism I suspect it to be false.
    Perhaps, this picture of the intolerant atheist would seem to fit the late Madalyn O'Hair (though some people who knew her would dispute this also).
    But I just don't see this irrational intolerance as characteristic of atheism as a whole. No doubt some fit the description, but many--I suspect most--do not.
    Erich Fromm, though an atheist, apparently saw much in the religious traditon that was admirable. The same could probably be said of Ernst Bloch. Even Marx, though an atheist, was not interested in fighting religion under an atheistic banner, but of fighting what he regarded as a system of capitalist exploitation. But atheism was not a cause for which he fought.
    Bertrand Russell, who certainly spent more time criticizing religion than did Marx, saw it as irrational and intolerant, but more often than one might think, criticized it as a bulwark of an oppressive social order. I don't see his atheism as irrational, and he was prepared to defend the rights of religious people who would have persecuted him if they had the power.
    Sartre railed against colonialism, the bad faith and injustice of bourgeois society, and the repressiveness of Stalinims in Hungary and Prague, far more than against religion.
    Most atheists, when they are intolerant, it is with regard to atheism or religion as toward some perceived social wrong. Atheism can be, but is not necessarily, a banner of militant and unquestioned beliefs.

  • Godless?
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on October 12, 2006 at 1:45pm EDT
  • As an atheist, I agree with Rob in his description. I disagree with Jack Trades.

    There is a difference between a sort of vague and nebulous faith in either the existance of a God "out there" not really engaged in the actual running of the world, who sits on a cloud and occasionally gives us a vision and the active, intervening God that the more faithful among us believe in. Anyone who believes in said interested God will regard those who disregard the historic traditions and writings in favor of their own ahistorical interpretation of a deity who follows their own desires as essentially if not literally godless.

  • Godless
  • Posted by Dee , ALL Peoples Have Belief Systems on October 15, 2006 at 6:50am EDT
  • A belief system is something one is or one's opinion or what one will defend or having a faith in a person or thing. That belief system can be oneself. I find this survey with about 65% or more as being without "God."

    As for a person who refers to oneself as "Christian" is not one when that one doesn't believe in the Bible referring to it as in error and not taking it literally. Most of the churches and their leaders are what Jesus said in God's Word, "White washed sepulchers!" They are neither hot nor cold but lukewarm who He will spew out of his mouth. It's the blind leading the blind. Bob Dylan said we've got to serve somebody. So everyone does whether it's God or a creature or as I said.... oneself.

    When it comes to surveys, they are questionable, as I have experience in that department. They can be ambiguous, asked in a way to bring about desired result of the questioner, surveyors have their own ideas to begin with and want the survey to reflect their ideas many times, etc.

    Oh really!....Christians being Republicans all the time is absurd! Billy Graham is a Democrat. With Madalyn Murray O'Hair, a strange atheist to behold, I saw her debate in person as one who really believed in what she said and defended. Look what happened to her and her one son and granddaughter of another. I know Christians who are of almost any party with their conservative ideologies. They are not uneducated like those ilk who want to believe that. Oh, did I say "believe?"

    It comes down to "when" people left the faith of their Founding Fathers and have refused to read the Federalist Papers, for one instance. The writings of these men say it all. George Washington had much to say during battle. That's one of many who I admire and look up to for their beliefs. I would also suggest as a good literature guide to read, "Spiritual Values in Shakespeare," by Ernest Marshall Howse.

    What do we do with Harvard, the training college of ministers, and other Ivy League colleges origins of faith? Did they evolve from belief to today's unbelief? Do we like America more now than when they were alive and had their belief system and taught God's Word?

    So many have fallen under the hypnotic power of the 1960's onward professors of secular humanism and values clarification. Communism is a belief system without God. Look what these other "isms" did to their countries and still do today with their leaders with the belief of destroying America and Israel. The ACLU quietly goes to court to stop the majority from voting against their idea of destroying Christmas and other religious symbols. A 1/4" cross was on a flag with other symbols in Los Angelos (City of Angels) which the ACLU agenda went to the circuit courts to have things removed. Yet, Christianity and Judaism isn't permitted to have theirs? Where's the tolerance? Where's the outrage?Our country and others have always fought "religious wars" just like we are in today. We need to all take a lesson about how the Amish handled the brutal murder of their little girls and how they are showering love on the family of the shooter. I knew these Amish and Mennonite peoples when my family once lived near them and worshipped with them though we weren't of their community. Again, when it comes to celebration of holidays, what do we do with the TRUE story of Thanksgiving? It's been revised by history revisionists, also. The Pilgrims and American Indians would turn over in their graves to see us today.

    If one is truly open minded enough to read the others writings and hold true to one's beliefs or convictions without bashing them as liberal or conservative, then one might just find the true answer. God does not make puppets; we have such a thing as a "free will" to believe or not believe what we want. It's "your" choice.

    I wouldn't want to gamble on the fact that my belief system is incorrect and find myself somewhere I'd rather not be. No one will be able to say they did not know or did not hear or had no conscience to figure out the higher power IS God. One would be amazed at how many scientists are real true Christians and not in name only and placed their lives in God's hands!

    Now you have my words and God's Word, the Bible, to show you truth and can't say you never heard or were not warned about your belief. All of us will be held accountable for what we read or heard or did not hear or read. That's how we will be judged no matter where one lives. So, whoever reads this is now one notch up in their accountability to the Creator...God.The accountabilty bar has now been raised on you!

  • basic elements of consciousness
  • Posted by Alexandria deJesus , clinical psychotherapist/educator on November 13, 2006 at 11:25am EST
  • As a professor/clinician, I believe in God.

    Academia, the seat of critical thinking, draws a siginificant amount of interest when
    studies particulary focus on subjective material such as religion.
    Usually, a crticial thinker examins the variables that exist outside the proverbial comfort box. Leaving themselves open, as such, for opportunities to gain more knowledge and to apply such knowledge not just for their personal growth, however, more to mentor others for their growth which we recognize as cyclical.
    The question: If life is a cycle and if inner peace is just based on accomplishment why is there a void when religious beliefs do not exist.
    In the final-outcome of our lives-That moment of our death where if we are fortunate-enough to remain cognizant, we are all brought to the unknown by relfection of what we have done with our lives. Moreover, the impact of how our life's-examples/experiences have effected others. there is a deep sense of drive for achieving accountablitiy in most socieities.
    Most societies exhibit conscious constraint. The argument of how we are able to define what is truly right from what is truly wrong is the catylst for the existance of relgion in the global community.
    The question will remain due to the inability of many scholars to admit that in the end the what if? does not result in a peaceful end.
    Faith is grounded on the element of hope, a hope unseen.
    I remain in awe of this undefinable universe as it hangs in what appears to be infinity.
    The unknown is better defined by a religious conviction than not.
    The question will remain a personal choice. I have known many professors that choose not to believe in God, the why's have not interested me for various reasons. The most important one is that spiritual conviction is personal. The outcome of those convictions is a life tempered-the ability to distinguish right from wrong.
    The New York saying "Speaking right walking left" changes.
    alex deJesus