Zuckerman argues that children can be raised with strong morals without religion. He cites studies showing secular families provide a solid foundation and that secular people have strong empathy. However, Zuckerman fails to acknowledge any benefits of religion and uses dismissive language, weakening his argument. While initially citing research, he later makes claims without evidence. Zuckerman builds his ethos as an expert but does not engage religious perspectives, making the argument ineffective for non-secular readers.

1. 1, Working
Rhetorical Analysis: “How Secular Family Values Stack Up”
By Patrick Working
In Phil Zuckerman’s op-ed article, “How Secular Family Values Stack Up” (published January 14th, 2015
in the Los Angeles Times), Zuckerman addresses a social concern for the growing population of children
being raised in ‘secular homes’, that is, homes that do not practice any particular religion. Zuckerman, a
Sociology and Secular Studies professor at Pitzer College, as well as a self-described secular parent and
author of “Living the Secular Life: New Answers to Old Questions”, positions himself to combat the
cultural stigma that children raised without faith will grow up ‘less moral’ than those who experience a
religious upbringing. Zuckerman claims in the article’s closing paragraph, “Children raised without
religion have no shortage of positive traits and virtues…”. Zuckerman engages and responds to ongoing
friction in our culture between religious and non-religious people and the role religion plays (or doesn’t
play) in forming children’s moral identities.
Zuckerman begins by explaining that statistics show an increasing number of Americans are
identifying their faith as “nothing in particular”. Answering the question, “How does one raise
upstanding, moral children…” (Zuckerberg 1) without traditional religious morality? Zuckerman quotes
Vern Bengston, a fellow Professor of Sociology, to reiterate his thesis claim: “Secular households provide
a sound and solid foundation for children.” Bengston's research finds that secular parents were passionate
about their ethical principals, and live goal-filled lives. Recounting his own research,Zukerman claims
that secular Americans indeed have strong morals, and, “...far above all, empathy.” An atheist mother
interviewed by Zuckerman claims that secular empathy is superior to a faith-based morality, reasoning
that it is not challenged if you question the existence of God, nor is it challenged if you become religious
later in life. Zuckerman cites research that secular teenagers care less about what their peers think, and
that secular adults are less racist and more tolerant than religious adults. Zuckerman points out statistics
showing that atheists are almost absent from the prison population. He also mentions that countries with

2. 2, Working
the least religious faith have the lowest violent crime rates and enjoy a “high societal well being”
(Zuckerman 2). Zuckerman concludes that he, like other secular parents, often wonder if it is possibly a
mistake to raise their children without religion, to which he finds “The unequivocal answer is no.”
Much of Zuckerman’s article rests on statistics and research-driven insights from peers in
sociology. This, combined with his own expertise in the field, reinforces his perception as an expert able
to speak with scientific authority, even acknowledging his personal biases. However,Zuckerman fails to
build a bridge to even a slightly incredulous audience. He presents his opinions in whole with virtually no
recognition of his opposition (and therefore no response or confutatio to it), and uses condescending and
insensitive word choice throughout that would instantly turn off more religious-minded readers. Not least,
Zukerman employs a couple less-grounded and ‘logical leaps of faith’ examples near the end of the piece
that simultaneously hurt the article’s established logos, as well as shift, if only somewhat,the author from
the position of expert to zealot in the realm of secular sociology.
The opening segments of Zuckerman’s argument uses statistics to show a growth of secular
thinking in the United States. Though Zuckerman is casualin tone, he is clear and directly points to
respectable research to back his claims. Skimming over his tonally harsh “So, how does the raising of
upstanding, moral children work…” (for now), Zuckerman continues this pattern through the first half of
the article. He projects an image of someone who is research driven, and who is cautious to make a claim
without a well-researched study to back him up. When Zuckerman references his own findings, he
doesn’t present anything empirical to support his claims that secular culture is about “...a spirit of
‘questioning everything’ and, far above all, empathy” but his voice and logical progression thus far invite
you to trust his conclusions. Through these means, Zuckerman builds a strong appeal to ethos as a
scientist and a public figure presenting ideas, as well as establishes (up to this point) a cohesive internal
logic presented in the article.
While Zuckerman’s rational approach to research-dependant statements build him up, his casual
disrespect for a religious audience weakens his respectability as an educator and narrows his appeal. From
the first line, “More children are ‘growing up godless’ than any other time…” , Zuckerman commits to an

3. 3, Working
article filled with diminutive, semi-sarcastic and condescending word choice and phrasing. Lines such as
“without prayers at mealtimes”, “supernatural beliefs”, “godless” (in quotations), do little service to any
reader of faith. Readers are invited to understand and respect that he is secular, but he makes little effort
to appeal to the 70% of the ‘non-godless’ Americans whom by his own research he should be acutely
aware. Working only with the assumption that people assume ‘dysfunctional, nihilistic and rudderless’
behavior from secularist children, Zuckerman misses an opportunity to extend religious readers a ‘meet
you in the middle’, eschewing any unique benefits of growing up in a system of faith (a sense of
community, common cultural values, traditions and emphasis on charity work come to mind).
For largely the same reasons,Zuckerman fails to accomplish any meaningful confutatio. This is
probably done knowingly to subvert the slippery slope of ‘atheism vs. religion’, but without
acknowledgement of any differing research,schools of thought or even a basic recognition of an opposing
opinion, Zuckerman misses an opportunity to extend a hand to the opposite camp, and an opportunity to
turn his brick wall of secularist facts into a three-dimensional engagement of the subject that more people
could feel a part of.
Despite Zuckerman’s initial success at building his argument on well-founded facts and research,
examples in the second half of his article decline in quality. In an interview with Debbie, an atheist
mother, Zuckerman presents the reader an anecdotalrepresentation of his argument. Rhetorically this
succeeds,it clarifies the thought process of a secularist take on morality, highlights the importance of
empathy (a recurring target of the article), and brings in an element of pathos with the humanizing
character of a reflective and caring mother. The shift into a more opinion-based persuasion isn’t bad in
itself, but it marks a point where the article’s research starts to become increasingly less believable.
Claims that secular kids are “less likely to care what the ‘cool kids’ think” and are “less vengeful”
(Zuckerman 2) beg the question, how exactly does the study quantify these elements? Zuckerman
presents this ‘as a matter of fact’ with limp plausibility. The same arises from claims that “the unaffiliated
and nonreligious engage in far fewer crimes” (Zuckerman 2) and that a nation’s low crime rates and
societal well being can be seen as a correlative effect of “low levels of religious faith and participation”

4. 4, Working
(Zuckerman 2). Though all these facts support Zuckerman’s argument, it works against him to assume the
reader will take such large and sweeping statements at face value, and ultimately subtracts from his
logical and pathetic appeal.
Taking Phil Zuckerman’s article as a whole, it feels odd that a professor of sociology would take
such a combative stance. Despite this, he constructs a solid argument that morality isn’t just for people of
faith, using an argument founded on top of scientific studies that could ring true to reasonable readers
across the spectrum. His ethos is bolstered by his profession, his reliance on research,and his passion for
a humanist cause. Unfortunately, Zuckerman fails to give anything to his opposition, not affording a
sentence in his article to the value religious faith may bring to a child’s life. This absence,coupled with
religiously dismissive language and a few hard-to-swallow research findings, make an otherwise
contemplative, research driven, and well-crafted argument ineffective for those who aren’t already in
agreement.
Works Cited
Zuckerman, Phil. "How Secular Family Values Stack up." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 14
Jan. 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0115-zuckerman-secular-
parenting-20150115-story.html#page=1>.