Religious Discrimination as a Case Study for Tolerance and Scientific Literacy (Part One)

The following started out as one simple blog post, but I have decided to turn it more into a treatise on religion and science and make it multi-part.  Kudos to you if you can stick with me through it all!  But in the meantime, I request you refrain from drawing hard and fast conclusions until I've completed all parts ;)

Let's face it, there are far fewer opportunities in academia for those with only a Masters degree and not a PhD.  Even less rare are positions available for those with only a Masters AND who are constrained to an approximately 100 mile radius of a medium-sized metropolitan area.  These realities make it sting even more when you are living on loan money and food stamps, searching for a job, and finally find an opportunity that you know you are qualified for in every aspect except your religious beliefs.  And because of your beliefs, you are discriminated against, thanks to a loophole in Equal Opportunity Employment law.  Even though you are not seeking a position as a clergy person, or any position in which your religious beliefs are at all relevant to your job, you are asked not to even bother applying, because this institution is "committed" to hiring only those subscribing to a very narrow subset of Christian beliefs, a euphemistic way of saying their hiring practices are unashamedly discriminatory.

There are so many questions inspired by this situation:

1.  Should a religious school be allowed to discriminate based on religion in its hiring practices of faculty in departments unrelated to religion?

2.  Why would they want only those of a particular religious belief in their science department in particular?  Are they afraid of the scientifically-accepted truths of the big bang or evolution that some faiths deem to be at odds with their beliefs? 

3.  Can religion and science be successfully separated by an individual?  If not, how does that affect the individual's understanding of science?

4.  Playing devil's advocate, if you deem that religious belief and science cannot be separated and that it is thus acceptable to discriminate because of beliefs because you are a religious institution, then why would it be any less acceptable to discriminate against those of religious faith by a nonsectarian institution who wants its faculty's science to be unaffected by religion?

5.  What place, if any, does religion have in science?

6.  If religion is brought into the scientific curriculum at an accredited institution, what does that mean for the validity of science degrees awarded by that institution?  Moreover what are the more far-reaching implications of the way alumni from that institution contribute to scientific understanding in our society?

7.  If a religious school feels that religion should not be brought into the curriculum, and feels that a person is capable of separating the two (as I imagine they would claim if one of their alumni were met with skepticism by a potential employer that their religious beliefs might interfere with their understanding of science), then what relevance should one's religion have in hiring science faculty at their institution?

8.  If religion and science cannot be separated by the individual, then what brand of "science" is being taught by that person?

9.  Would their Jesus have approved of excluding the "heathen" from their ranks? The same Jesus who, according to scripture, sat down with lepers, beggars, and prostitutes and taught unconditional love?

I could go on and on with similar questions, but instead, I will simply posit my assessment of this state of affairs.  But first let me re-state and turn on its head what I have said above: you "finally find an opportunity that you know you are qualified for in every aspect except your religious beliefs.  And because of your beliefs, you are discriminated against, thanks to a loophole in Equal Opportunity Employment law."  Could you IMAGINE the uproar if a Christian were writing those two preceding sentences?!  Let's just say for a moment, that a science department, such as biology, decides it will only hire people who are agnostics or atheists because it believes that only such people will embrace the theory of evolution without reservation.  How long do you think those hiring practices would last without lawsuit?  Yet it is PERFECTLY acceptable to do the exact reverse?!  How is it ok to discriminate in one direction but not the other? Why is religious tolerance not mutual?

Now let me step back from what is quickly becoming a rant and say that I did try very hard to see things from the religious schools' perspective. They cherish their beliefs and they want faculty who will honor their beliefs. They want consistent examples, as parents might, for their youngsters so they are not led astray from the path of the righteous. They do not want a dissenter rocking their boat with a worldview incompatible with their theology. I get all that, I truly do. I was raised as a Christian, attended a very "born again" Baptist church every Sunday, sang in the choir, went on a mission trip, spent weeks in the summer at vacation bible school and religious camp, etc.  One thing I learned in those days was the importance of acting as a "witness" to the Christian faith. As Christians who were saved we were obliged to spread the "good news" and try to lead others to salvation. This meant reaching a loving and kind hand out to others, including those who were not Christians, not turning our backs on them. Preaching to the choir did nothing to spread the word of the lord; only inviting others to our teachings could help achieve that.  Certainly Jesus himself taught us to love even our enemies and would not have snubbed the non-believer.

Ok, but it's one thing to invite an atheist friend to church, but it's another thing entirely to hire an atheist to be employed by the church, right? Shouldn't a religious institution be allowed to ensure its disciples are those of the same set of beliefs? I maintain that it depends on what they are employed to do.  How relevant is their faith to the job description? Certainly you need your clergy and religious educators (pastors, reverends, sunday school or ccd teachers, youth directors, etc) to be of the same beliefs the church espouses.  I could see how faith might also be relevant to directing a church choir (having an understanding of scripture would be important in choosing relevant hymns and other repertoire, for example), or even for secretarial duties (where you might have to field phone call inquiries regarding the beliefs of the church).  But is it necessary for the church custodian or groundskeeper to be of the same faith as the church?  Not that most churches have a shortage of faithful from which to choose for such positions, but in principle, I doubt too many church members would object to employing a secular landscaper to weed the church gardens, plant seasonal bulbs and spread fresh mulch or a faithless roofer to repair some shingles on the church steeple or a godless electrician to install the new sound system in the megachurch ampitheater. Especially if they were the best at their trade.

To explore this point further, if the above is true for the church itself, it only stands to reason that there ought to be similar examples for church-affiliated schools. I think most of us can think of examples of teachers at religious schools that are not of that religion. I have heard through the grapevine that a former student of mine is now teaching at a Catholic school though she is not Catholic, and one of my high school classmates' fathers taught at a Jewish school but they are not a Jewish family. These two examples are teachers of subjects unrelated to religion. So it seems reasonable and not unprecedented to hire outside the faith for positions that do not require belief of a certain kind. Moreover, I imagine there would be an even stronger case for such hiring if the candidate was highly qualified, as I am sure the school would like to be able to say they employ faculty of the highest excellence. 

Not to toot my own horn but I do believe I am an excellent teacher.  I pride myself in being fair, in teaching in a hands-on way, and in accommodating individual learning styles and needs.  Moreover,  I am genuine in my passion to help others understand.  I have had many students compliment me on my teaching abilities, received unsolicited praise, and thank you's for going above and beyond expectations.  I believe my qualities set me apart from most teachers, and that the proof is in the pudding.  So if you were in the business of hiring a physics teacher, would not the experienced talented teacher be more appealing than an average teacher who happened to share your religious views?  Presumably those in charge of setting hiring policies care about the quality of education they have to offer their students, so why would they exclude potentially exceptional teaching candidates sheerly on the basis of religion.  If two candidates were equally excellent teachers and one had a belief system more in line with the religious mission of the institution, that might be a different story, but you'll never know if you have the best teacher for the job if you automatically reject a whole segment of the pool of candidates.

Most members of the population may not realize what a huge segment that actually amounts to in this case.  The average person is used to thinking of atheists and agnostics as comprising the small minority (roughly 2-5% of the US population according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#cite_note-14), but in the areas of science these numbers are vastly different.  For natural scientists (biologist, chemists, and physicists), less than 40% believe in god (http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html ).  So to only consider candidates for a position if they believe in god, you are already axing over 60% of candidates, and to further only consider those of one particular denomination of one particular religion clearly excludes the vast majority of candidates.  It is only logical, then, that you are not even considering some highly talented individuals.  What are the odds that the best scientists happens to be in such an overwhelming minority?  But this subject leads to a deeper question.  WHY are so many scientists agnostic or atheist?  Obviously there must be some connection back to the questions of what relevance religion has to science and whether the two can be separated by the individual.

I believe two simple assertions: 1. religion has no place in science. 2. religion and science can be successfully kept separate by an individual willing to keep them separate.  Take, for example, the man who first theorized the Big Bang as the way our universe came into being: a Catholic priest named Georges Lemaitre.  He is quoted as saying, about his Big Bang theory (though it wasn't called that yet) "As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question."  He clearly felt that religion should and can be kept apart from science.  Indeed an article in the New York Times  describes Lemaitre this way: "'There is no conflict between religion and science,' Lemaitre has been telling audiences over and over again in this country .... His view is interesting and important not because he is a Catholic priest, not because he is one of the leading mathematical physicists of our time, but because he is both."  I have known many scientists who are also religious.  Most tend to agree with my first assertion and exhibit a capacity to keep religion out of their science.  But that is not to say it's an easy thing to do.  That's why I believe people like Lemaitre are rare, and why so many scientists are not religious.  It's simply difficult to keep your life compartmentalized in that way.  

Science speaks a language of facts and evidence; religion speaks a language of belief and faith.  At some point, most who study science with any level of seriousness realize that they have never taken the tools of scientific skepticism to other areas of their life, and upon scrutiny, realize there is no evidence or facts speaking to the supernatural.  The scientist is then faced with a choice: speculate and allow for faith in the absence of proof; or accept the lack of evidence as reason not to place faith in the existence of the supernatural.  While the laymen love to turn this choice on its head and say, "but there's no evidence there *isn't* a god," the way science works is by suspending conviction until confirming data can support an idea, not the reverse, of assuming an idea is true sans evidence until proven untrue.  An application of this distinction: there is currently no proof that I have invisible fairies living in my patio.  I could posit that they cannot be detected visually or by sound or any other physical sense--that I simply can "feel" their presence.  And no scientist could prove they *don't* exist, but I hope this silly example serves to show that it's not logical to assume they *do* exist just because we can't prove they *don't.*  The scientific method doesn't work that way.  First a hypothesis must be testable to be considered scientifically legitimate.  Hypothesizing the existence of god would require, in the scientific realm, a means by which to prove god's existence.  Furthermore, when we suggest a hypothesis, we never say that science allows for fully believing it on faith until we can gather evidence to support it.  If we try gathering evidence and fail, we usually discard our hypothesis unless we have reason to suspect that the tools of science in our era lack the sophistication to sufficiently find support for our hypothesis.  For example, many astronomers felt there probably were other planet systems out there, aside from our own solar system, but for many years the level of precision needed to detect the signature of a planet simply didn't exist.  There were other pieces of evidence to suggest that planets probably were out there, but we couldn't fully support this until technological advances were made.  Therefore, the only position astronomy could tell us about planets was an agnostic one.  Scientists could assert that they believed extrasolar planets were out there, but they would concede until very recently that there had been no direct scientific proof for this.  Nor could they have used the logic that surely extrasolar planets existed because no one had proven they *didn't* exist.  But whether a scientists believed in extrasolar planets or not 40 years ago, they would probably have said the matter required more time for technology to be able to advance in order to draw a scientific conclusion.  Another example to consider would be the existence of the ether that some hypothesized light waves to propagate through.  Many scientists (who turned out to be correct) rejected this idea because there was no direct proof for it.  Others, even without proof, felt that we just needed more sophisticated testing.  In fact Michelson and Morley were trying to prove the existence of ether with a new and advanced interferometer when they managed to disprove its existence.  

So it is with the existence of god.  There is no evidence, but scientists can handle that by believing anyway, possibly deciding that some day science might advance sufficiently to be able to gather the proof that is currently lacking or possibly deciding that the question is inherently incompatible with the tools of science.  Either way they keep the question separate from science, at least for the time being.  Other scientists take the lack of evidence as an indication that we cannot say one way or another.  But most of us scientists disbelieve in the existence of god because of the sheer volume of null results: never in the history of mankind has a single shred of scientific evidence been uncovered to support the existence of god.  With extrasolar planets, we knew from our own solar system that planets can form and we knew there were billions of stars like our own sun, so that gave us at least a basis on which to suggest the existence of planets orbiting other stars.  Likewise, even though we now know that light can propagate even through the vacuum of space, it made sense to conjecture the existence of an invisible ether, since we knew all other waves (such as sound waves) needed a medium through which to propagate.  Contrasting this with the existence of god, not only is there no evidence, but there are no "logical" similar examples to extrapolate from in order to posit the existence of a supernatural  being.  Indeed, all other similar "examples" come from mythology, which most people regard as fictional, and for which there is certainly evidence for their fictional nature (we know, for example, that the sun appears to set because the earth spins on its axis, not because there is a sun god pulling a fiery chariot to the underworld).  In this light, many of us conclude that there is no reason any modern notion of a god is any different from other fictional mythological gods of past eras.

Ah, but you object, I claim religion should stay out of science, but I imply that if science had sophisticated enough tools, it could be used to probe for evidence of the existence of god.  Why shouldn't science stay out of religion as religion should stay out of science?  This is a good question.  Some people feel science should indeed stay out of religion, because religion and science are seeking two very different forms of truths: one is objective, the other is subjective. However, science has been used to probe religious questions: to carbon date religious artifacts, for example.  Still as I have painstakingly argued, using scientific tools to investigate questions of the divine often destroys religious belief for the scientist, so how is that any less of a crime than religion being brought into science and possibly destroying science as you might be anticipating I will argue?  The difference is simple and goes back to the nature of the truths being sought.  Because science seeks an objective truth, objective truths begin to appeal more to the scientist in most cases and they tend to abandon subjective truths such as religion, but they do not need to claim that others need to do the same.  Because religious truths are subjective, they may continue to hold validity to anyone wishing to seek such subjective truths, and as I might have poked fun at earlier, it remains true that science can never disprove those subjective truths.  On the other hand, trying to apply subjective search for truth to science quickly gets you into trouble.  It is tantamount to using opinions to argue with facts.  Science doesn't hold different truths for different denominations or belief systems, it isn't a personal quest, it isn't emotional.  Instead, science cares about *one* underlying objective truth that applies to everyone and everything.  Once you start bringing religious belief into the equation you have necessarily gone astray because the truths you are searching for are inherently not subjective ones.  Nor can you simply say, well I abandoned this scientific way of thinking just as the scientist has abandoned the religious way of thinking, unless you are willing to abandon objective realities and/or refrain from calling your conclusions "science."  No one needs you to apply science to questions of god's existence if you do not want to, since that is the subjective realm of thinking, but once you start saying that the earth was formed in such a way because of some words men have deemed holy rather than in the way that objective tools and factual evidence suggest, then you have lost objectivity for scientific reality.  If you are ok with knowing you have lost touch with scientific reality and call it a belief instead, then you may proceed with this line of thinking.  But sadly, it seems it rarely stops there, and instead, those who have abandoned facts in favor of opinions when it comes to science end up trying to speak to others with perceived authority on the subject of science, perverting both the scientific truths already uncovered and the scientific process in general.  Now if I as a scientist, with no religious credentials, make it my mission to claim religious authority and spread the word to all I can that religion is just a big delusion, then I would expect the devout to be angry with me, and with good reason.  Yet when the reverse is done, somehow this is seen as an opinion to be respected.

Ashley's Birth Story

In honor of my baby girl's 8th birthday today, here is her birth story (written shortly after her birth--edits from the original appear in brackets):
I awoke at 4:00AM on Saturday morning, March 13, 2004 with light contractions. I thought for sure they were just more of the Braxton-Hicks contractions I had been having for the past couple weeks, especially when nursing my two-year-old, Sarah.  I thought it would be best to try to go back to sleep.  I think deep inside I knew this was it, but I convinced myself that, even if it was, I should rest and conserve my energy.  Not getting some sleep had been my biggest mistake in my prolonged labor with Sarah, and I did not want to repeat that mistake.  Try as I might, though, I just could not sleep for the excitement of realizing the contractions were becoming regular.  I did manage to rest in between them, but I felt my being awake might disturb Sarah or my [then] husband Alex, so I got up and went to rest on the couch in the spare bedroom.
Just before 6:00AM, I felt a sort of ripping sensation during the height of a contraction.  That was followed by a small rush of amniotic fluid, and I realized my membranes had ruptured, although not as dramatically as they had when they were artificially ruptured during my labor with Sarah.  I grabbed a towel and dried off, and checked to see if the water was clear, which it was.  I thought my labor might speed up at this point, so I woke up Alex to tell him what was going on.  Then I went back into the spare bedroom while Alex got some of our supplies ready.
The contractions were still seven to ten minutes apart.  They were easy enough to stay on top of simply by focusing on relaxation and visualizing my cervix opening up.  I felt as though each contraction was dilating my cervix a little more.  It was actually kind of neat to be so in tune with my body, having no distractions--just letting go and marveling at the miracle of birthing.  I rubbed my belly between contractions and told the baby not to be scared; that soon we would be together and finally meet face to face.
At 7:00AM I thought we should call our midwife, Ellen, to let her know I was in labor.  Although I had this lingering feeling that this labor was much more productive and would go much more quickly than my last, my logical brain was still saying it was very early in the labor.  So I told Ellen I would call her again in an hour with a progress report.  I did not want her to have to make the almost-two-hour drive until I was sure I was in hard labor.
Around 7:30AM Sarah woke up and wanted her morning nursing, and I was handling the contractions so well, I thought I should oblige since I was not sure if I would be feeling up to nursing her later.  So we sat in bed and nursed, and the nipple stimulation really made the contractions closer together and more intense.  I had three good strong contractions just in the short time I nursed Sarah.  I had already eaten an energy bar, but I thought if I wanted to get some breakfast, I had better eat soon before things got too intense.
Alex had been frying up some hash browns, so Sarah and I went to the kitchen to get some.  I took a few bites, and then a strong contraction came.  I felt I needed to stand so I got up and leaned over a chair.  Sarah said, "What's mommy doing? Mommy relaxing?"  Alex said, "Yes, mommy's relaxing."  The funny thing was that it helped me remember to keep relaxing.  After a short time came another pretty strong contraction and I told Alex to call Ellen back and tell her to come while I went to take a shower.  Alex called Ellen around 8:15AM and told her to come but not to rush too much--we both figured it would still be a few more hours.  I went to the bathroom to take a shower, but standing and walking was picking up labor even more.  After several contractions while trying to get undressed, I decided to forego the shower and just go back to the couch in the spare bedroom.
I found it comfortable to be on all fours on the couch, swaying my hips, and by by myself for a while.  I wanted to be in the water, though, so I asked Alex to set up the labor pool and let me know as soon as it was ready.  Around 9:00AM he said there was probably enough water in it for me to get in, so I did, and got back on hands and knees.  Alex had called my mom to take Sarah shopping for a while and she walked in the door right at the peak of a contraction and started talking to my sister in the kitchen, which was really distracting to me.  I asked for everyone to leave, and they were all fumbling to get Sarah's stuff together and head out the door.  It was hard to relax with the hustle and bustle going on and the contractions seemed to be coming right on top of each other, sometimes with double peaks of intensity.  I tried be silent and concentrating on relaxing and then I started singing.  Long, deep tones helped me stay calm.  I also reminded myself that it takes more muscles to frown than to smile, and it seemed to loosen me up if I closed my eyes and smiled a little as I sang.
My mom, my sister and Sarah finally left, and then things started becoming more wild.  I was having difficulty staying on top of the contractions, and I was not getting enough of a break between them to regain my composure.  I tried to go on auto-pilot and not think too much, just let my "monkey" do it, as Ina May [Gaskin, famous midwife from The Farm in Tennessee and author of "Spiritual Midwifery,"] would say.  In other words, let my primal side take over, rather than letting my logical side run the show.  That worked for a little bit, but then I started losing it.  I draped my arms over the side of the pool and started screaming.  Alex held me and told me to stay calm.  I said I could not do it; that the contractions were never-ending.  He said that means it is almost over, but I did not believe him.  It had occurred to me that I was in transition, but it seemed like it was way too soon--Ellen was not even there yet.
It was hard not to panic or freak out.  Another contraction came, and I started thrashing back and forth into the side of the pool and beating my fists against the floor and screaming.  Alex tried again to calm me down, and it helped a little.  I lowered my voice and leaned on him, saying over and over, "I just want a break... I just want a break."  A much-needed break between contractions was so short as to be imperceptible by me.  During the next few contractions I was alternating between crying, wailing, and trying to bite Alex.  Then suddenly I felt the urge to push.  I pushed during one contraction, and then had an overwhelming need to leave the water.  "I have to get out of here!" I said and got out and went straight to our bedroom, where, thankfully, Alex had already covered the bed in plastic.
I immediately got on all fours again and told Alex I had to push.  He said, "No not yet; Ellen's still not here."  I said I had to and pushed with the next contraction.  It felt so relieving to push--relieving and powerful at the same time.  Alex put his arm around my shoulder, kneeling beside me and holding my hand.  I pushed again with the next two contractions, and then it felt like the head was coming out.  Alex happened to stop and look and he said, "Oh my God, Mel, there's the head!"  I felt it burning and tried to slow down when I thought the head was crowning, but I was not sure exactly when that was and felt that I was tearing a little.  The next push brought out the head, and Alex said, "Wait, cord."  So I panted while he unraveled the cord, and then I really wanted to keep pushing.  I asked him if it was ok to push again, and he said yes.  I was determined to get the shoulders out easily this time, since they were stuck with Sarah's birth, and I wanted the baby out to be sure everything was ok, especially since Ellen was not there.  So I gave a strong push and out the baby came.  I heard crying almost immediately.  Alex suctioned a little and then said, "It's a girl!"  He passed her to me and I sat down with her and tried to nurse her, but she was not very interested at the time.  Alex called my mom's cell phone and told them to come back because the baby was born.  It was 10:00AM and they had just left 20 minutes before and had not even made it to the store yet, so they were shocked! 
I massaged my uterus a little and pushed the placenta most of the way out and soon my mom, my sister, and Sarah came in the door to greet the new baby.  Ellen made it right after them, and helped me get the placenta the rest of the way out, clamped and cut the baby's cord, and got me cleaned up.  She said I had torn a tiny bit but nothing that required stitches.  She weighed the baby at eight pounds and measured her to be twenty and a half inches long.  We named her Ashley [middle and last name omitted for privacy].  Soon she and Sarah were nursing together in our bed, looking at each other and Sarah reaching out to stroke Ashley and everyone gathering around.

You're a What?

Let's take a short step back and explain all the terms used in my introduction.  Feel free to skip over any or all of this if you are already familiar.  Definitions, here we come.

First the parenting terminology:

• Natural Parenting:  In a nutshell, caring for your offspring as close to nature as possible.  This involves trying to mimic what a primitive human would do, since, evolutionarily, our babies are born with the same expectations and capacities as our ancient human ancestors.  Synonym: Continuum Concept Parenting, named for the book "The Continuum Concept" by Jean Liedloff.  Abbreviations: NP, CC
• Attachment Parenting:  Very similar to NP, this term was coined by Dr. William Sears, who believes early attachment with our offspring is important for ideal development.  Through his prolific writings, Dr. Sears has defined specific ways to promote this attachment, which he calls the "Baby B's" (breastfeeding, birth bonding, babywearing, bedding close to baby, belief in the importance of baby's cries).  In practice natural parenting also follows these "B's" as a matter of course. However the main distinction between attachment parenting and continuum concept or natural parenting is that the former tends to be more child-centric (planning life around these attachment techniques and deliberately engaging baby in activities geared to promote attachment) and the latter tends to be more adult-centric (fitting child into regular life in a win-win way as many tribal societies do that continue regular activities without deliberately going out of their way to entertain baby).  Another small way that they differ is in how realistically they can be applied to modern society.  Attachment parenting was defined through the lens of modern thinking, even though it is inspired by nature.  Natural parenting is in a sense a philosophical ideal to strive for but some aspects may be difficult to directly apply to our modern lives, though keeping this ideal in mind helps us keep perspective and question societal convention when appropriate. Abbreviation: AP
•  Extended Breastfeeding:  This term is, quite frankly, a misnomer.  It is used to convey a commitment to breastfeeding for longer than the societal norm, but as our societal norm is far outside natural human weaning age, there is really nothing "extended" about this timetable.  The natural human weaning age is the age at which humans in nature would wean if there were no societal impositions.  This subject has been studied by anthropologist Kathy Dettwyler, whose research has determined the natural weaning age of humans to be between 2.5 and 7 years of age, with about 4 years being the most common.  This seems quite on par with my personal experience, as my eldest weaned at 4 yrs, my second weaned at 2.5 yrs, and my youngest is still going strong.  By comparison the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a minimum of 2 yrs of breastfeeding, and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) only recommends a minimum of 1 yr of breastfeeding (the first 6 months of which should be "exclusive" breastfeeding, meaning no solid foods).  And in practice only a small majority of babies in the US are breastfed at all, and of those that are, most are weaned by 6 months of age.  This is why terms like "extended breastfeeding" were invented because a commitment to respect the natural weaning age has become (regrettably) an unusual occurrence in our society.  Related terms: Natural weaning, self-weaning, child-led weaning.
• Child-Led Weaning:  Simply put, allowing the child to wean on his/her own when he/she feels ready.  The beginning of the weaning process is the introduction of solid foods, so the first step in child-led weaning is to delay the introduction of solids until the baby seems quite ready.  The AAP recommends no sooner than 6 months.  After that, one would look for signs of readiness, such as reaching for foods, and even then, just experiment first to see if baby is actually swallowing food offered--if he/she is not, one would hold off longer, experimenting now and then until the baby seems to get what to do before feeding solids in earnest.  After solids are introduced, breastmilk remains an important staple in the diet, until the nursling tapers off and eventually loses interest.  Contrary to societal assumptions, this style of weaning usually occurs quite effortlessly, without tears or trauma. Synonyms: Natural weaning, self-weaning, baby-led weaning Abbreviations: CLW, BLW
• Babywearing: In practice, strapping your baby into a carrier of your choice and "wearing" him/her most of the time.  The philosophy behind it is that babies' natural expectation is to be in the arms of a caregiver, because in nature, a human baby isolated from an adult would be vulnerable to predators.  Witness other primates that keep their young close at all times. Thus those who follow a NP or CC parenting style believe we are born hard-wired to be anxious about being left alone.  Specifically babies tend to cry more if they aren't held and NP would tell us that this is a survival instinct, a call for help for what is perceived by the infant to be a dangerous situation.  Even for those who do not read that far into it, AP philosophy says that babywearing has benefits for both mother and baby.  Those benefits include (but are not limited to): easy access for breastfeeding, more stimulating "real life" experiences for baby, the security of human touch, reduced postpartum depression and anxiety, convenience of parent having hands free while meeting baby's desire for closeness and carrying.
• Co-sleeping: Sharing a sleep space with your offspring.  This could mean sleeping in the same bed or keeping baby in a "sidecar" crib or bassinet that attaches to the parents' bed.  This arrangement facilitates nighttime feedings, increases bonding time, and helps baby feel secure.  Dr. James McKenna's research suggests that co-sleeping may also be safer than isolated sleep for baby, as he has shown that mother's breathing helps regulate baby's breathing and that mother develops an acute awareness of her baby as they slumber, and both of these things may protect the baby from SIDS.  Co-sleeping is often portrayed as unsafe and a little digging reveals that those behind the anti-co-sleeping campaigns include crib manufacturers, who clearly have a conflict of interest.  Statistics used as "evidence" against co-sleeping fail to make a distinction between safe and unsafe co-sleeping practices, including infant deaths occurring in couches or other unsafe sleeping environments or in the presence of a parent who was under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.  Dr. Sears' guidelines spell out how to achieve a safe co-sleeping arrangement, which include the use of a bed rail, a large firm mattress, eliminating gaps and loose or fluffy bedding and pillows, and assuring that no parent is under the influence of anything that could make them less aware of baby's presence.  Similarly to babywearing, NP would tell us that, evolutionarily, baby humans would expect to be sleeping close to their parents as other primates do.  Solitary sleep would leave baby vulnerable in the wild, so this can be seen as the reason why babies seem to protest against it.  Nor is it natural for parents to have to trudge down a hallway to another room in the middle of the night and be so sleep-deprived. There are volumes of books on the subject of how to get baby to sleep through the night for the very reason that the crib in another room arrangement is so impractical for night feedings.  But babies' little bellies cannot hold much and their natural sleep patterns are not like adults'.  Most families who co-sleep report that most of the time, everyone feels well-rested, even if baby is not sleeping through the night because no one has to stir very much or leave the cozy nest in order to meet baby's nighttime needs.  NOT sleeping through the night also has benefits for both baby and mother--babies tend to gain weight faster and mothers tend to enjoy longer postpartum infertility.
• Elimination Communication: This is the act of cultivating an awareness of baby's need to "eliminate"  (urinate or defecate) and to facilitate helping baby eliminate in a specified location (a potty in our culture, a bush or hole in a culture closer to nature).  In most parts of the world, children are "toilet trained" by age 1; diapers are an invention that is either not heard of or not available. So humans do as they have done in the past: tune into baby's signals and hold baby over an appropriate place, making some kind of cue for the baby to associate this place with eliminating so that the communication goes both ways.  How do you know when baby has to go?  You rely on timing and subtle cues, just as you do when deciphering when your dog needs to be taken outside to do his business.  And similarly to puppies and other baby mammals, human babies are born with a desire not to soil the nest--they just need a little help in avoiding doing so, since humans are born quite helpless compared to many animals.  When practiced in modern society, most parents do use at least some diapers (usually cloth since adherents to elimination communication tend to favor eco-friendly, natural ways and because cloth doesn't wick wetness away, which can cause baby to lose touch with the sensation of eliminating while causing the parent to be less sure if a diaper has been wet) as backup, especially in the early months.  Subterminology: a "catch" is when elimination makes it to its desired location; a "miss" is when it does not (usually ending up in the backup diaper instead).  These terms are felt to be more appropriate, since terms like "accident" imply it was the child's shortcoming, where "miss" acknowledges the mutual communication that takes place during elimination communication.  Synonyms: Diaper-free, infant potty training, natural infant hygiene Abbreviation: EC
• Ecological Breastfeeding: Related to natural weaning, this is a means of exploiting the child-spacing attributes of breastfeeding by delaying solids, breastfeeding "on cue" or "on demand" (meaning whenever the nursling wants, which tends to be very frequently compared to scheduled or semi-scheduled feedings), not using any artificial nipples (no bottles or pacifiers),  and not being separated from baby for any length of time, day or night (babywearing during naps, co-sleeping and night-nursing at night).  If these practices are followed and if they result in baby never going more than 4 hours between nursings during the day and never more than 6 hours between nursings during the night, the mother can enjoy what is known as "lactation amenorrhea," or LAM which means that the mother does not ovulate or menstruate, thus rendering her incapable of conceiving again.  This is nature's childspacing mechanism and it is shown to be over 90% effective.  The average duration of LAM was shown by Sheila Kippley to be 14 months.

Other parenting terms I may throw around, but which may not necessarily refer to me (I'm not really the "activist" type--at least not anymore ;), and some of these other terms are parenting practices that represent the antithesis of my own):

• Lactivist: an "activist" for breastfeeding promotion and breastfeeding rights (such as public breastfeeding and pumping rights for employees).
• Intactivist: one who discourages routine infant circumcision.
• Crying it out: the practice of leaving baby alone in his/her crib to fall asleep or get back to sleep on his/her own, ignoring baby's cries in the process. Abbreviation: CIO
• Mainstream Parenting: a parenting style which follows societal conventions, generally relying on a lot of "gear" such as disposable diapers, bottles, formula, jarred baby food, strollers, cribs, swings, electronic toys, etc that many NP or AP folks find little use for. 

Dietary terminology:

• Vegan: one who refrains from eating any foods of animal origin, including meat, dairy products, eggs, and "hidden" animal ingredients such as gelatin. Reasons for following this diet style tend to fall into 3 categories: ethics, environment, and health.
• Gluten-free: one who avoids grains containing gluten, mostly wheat.

Scientific terminology:

• Extrasolar planets: planets which orbit stars other than the sun.  Related terminology: transit: when an extrasolar planet is aligned in such a way that at a certain point in its orbit its path crosses between us and the star it orbits, temporarily dimming the star by a tiny but detectable amount.  The planet's presence can be inferred by such an event, but most extrasolar planets do not have such a fortuitous alignment so other indirect detection means are necessary to infer their presence. 

Educational terminology:

• Alternative education: education other than public schooling, including Waldorf, Montessori, homeschooling, cyberschooling and other non-public schooling.
• Montessori school: a school which follows the educational philosophy of Dr. Maria Montessori, who believed that children are self-motivated to learn and that the teacher need only facilitate such learning.  She also believed that play was crucial to the development of the child.

Why Babywearing is Logical and Scientific

The other day I was struck by what I found to be an odd sight.  I was parked at my older kids' school letting baby doze a few more minutes while we sat in the car just before school dismissal. I saw the woman beside me get out of her car, go around to the trunk, lift out a heavy-looking stroller and open it up.  She then wheeled it over to the back seat, locked the wheels, and muscled an infant bucket-style car seat out of the car, clicked it into the stroller, unlocked the wheels and pushed her very-much awake baby 50 ft into the school building.  5 minutes later she emerged with a young lad at her side, pushing the baby in the stroller back to the car to undo all the effort she'd just exerted to get baby back into the car.  "How inconvenient," I thought quietly to myself.

Meanwhile, my 5 month old awoke as he usually does after we sit in the parked car for a bit.  Still wearing the baby sling I had put on to carry him out to the car, I got out, went around back, got baby out of carseat, popped him back into the sling and went into the school with ease.  Not only did it take less than a minute, it didn't require hoisting large heavy objects out of two different places in my vehicle, or making sure wheels were locked or that things had clicked into place safely.  Moreover when I got to the door, I was able to hold it for someone coming out instead of hoping to have someone hold the door for me or struggle to get a stroller inside myself.  Plus, I had two hands available to hold each of my daughters' hands with as we made our way through the parking lot back out to the car.

If you were a baby, would you rather be strapped in a lightly padded hard plastic bucket with a nice view of people's kneecaps, or to be scooped up in your mom's cuddly arms and placed in a soft carrier attached to her warm body and enjoy a bird's eye view of all the faces in the school?  When I entered my daughters' classroom, the kids' faces met eye-to-eye with his and they smiled and "awwwed" at him.  He smiled back--it was such a sweet, engaging experience.

It is well-established in mainstream medicine that "kangaroo care" has important benefits for newborn development--the newborn gains weight better, regulates his body temperature easier, has less stress and improved cognitive development just to name a few.  All this from human contact!  But there's no reason to think these benefits abruptly end after the newborn period.  Studies of other primates have shown how important holding and carrying is to the well-being of their offspring.  There is reason to believe in the long-term benefits of human contact to human offspring as well (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=infant-touch). Moreover, there are benefits to the mother, too, such as reducing postpartum depression and anxiety (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091302207000179 ). 

Finally, besides convenience, infant developmental benefits, promoting bonding, and maternal postpartum benefits, two other things come to mind.  One, facilitation of breastfeeding.  Yesterday when I was grocery shopping, I had my baby on my hip in the sling when he started fussing.  I knew he wanted to nurse, so I just repositioned him in the sling, latched him on and kept shopping.  Not only was this easier than if I had had to get him out of a seat, stop shopping, and find a place to sit down to nurse him, it was also quite discreet.  No one would have been able to see what he was doing in the sling; he probably just appeared to be sleeping.  Not that I think women should *have* to be discreet--believe me, I've had times when my nursling wanted to just pop off every 30 seconds to look at the world around him/her and could have cared less if my breast was exposed in the process.  Sometimes it's tough to be discreet with a newborn who's still learning proper latch, too.  Plus, I think our society would benefit from breastfeeding being seen as normal not indecent.  However, I tend to prefer to be discreet and I feel more confident in public if I am nursing my baby in a sling because it allows for discretion.  Second thing about babywearing is that it is cheaper!  A good baby carrier usually costs under $100 and can often be used in different positions as baby grows into a toddler.  I have gotten years of use out of my slings.  And in the meantime, I never had to purchase those bucket car seats that babies so quickly grow out of, along with the "travel system" stroller to boot.  Instead, I invested in a good Britax convertible car seat that saw my daughters through til kindergarten.  (Unfortunately I had gotten rid of this car seat before I had my son, but thankfully some awesome relatives replaced it and got us one for each vehicle).

Plus, what could be more natural than carrying  baby next to your body?  What would primitive humans have done?  What seems more in line with our evolutionary expectations: plastic and wheels or arms and simple extensions of them?