What is morality? Morality is defined as 'The quality of being in accord with standards of virtuous conduct.' Ideologically distinguishing "right" from "wrong." In American Society, Christianity is the major, organized, monotheist religion, so respectively Christianity has more influence on morality, society, and government. With this established, let's observe the morality of those who do, and do not, advocate Christian Theology and compare and contrast the differences between them.
I've recognized that, in American Society, anyone who doesn't subject themselves to an organized religion, especially Christianity, are often ridiculed, patronized and hassled. (Hassled-- Trying to be converted into a Christian.) It is popular, in American Society, that Christian idealism should be the foundation of establishing morals and laws derived from Christian Morality. Atheists are looked upon as "Anti-christs," "evil-doers", "sinners" etc. because their beliefs are "realized" to be oppositional to Christianity. Is it true that atheists are "evil doing Anti-christs?" It's unbound to make the generalization, but in most cases, Atheists procure knowledge using testable evidence, logic and reason. Atheists could be said to be just realistic, reasonable people. If someone advocates reason and logic opposed to creationist ideology, is it fair for that person to be recognized at a sub-social or sub-religious status?

Initially, I'll observe the topic of Family in accordiance to Atheism and Christianity. According to Christian Morality, The Father is above Mother and Parent over Children. If Man is supra-woman, this logically suggests Man as dominant, and suppression of Women is a normality. In the King James Version of the 'Holy Bible' Adam says, in the book of 'Genesis' that "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Throughout History women have been oppressed by the malevolent Roman Catholic Church and Christianity in General. Women were products to men, and women served them, knowing if they defied Man's law (God's law) they would be reprimanded and edure abusive treatment which historically includes beration and defile. I have a profound detestation for the abuse and oppression of women, and the fact it was morally correct, according to Christianity, utterly disgusts me. And what disgusts me even more, even after the progress we've made as a civilization, Christian Morality, in this aspect, is still practiced. Why? It's been branded into mainstream thought.
Considering there's no doctrine of religion in association with Atheism, it's not accurate to assume all atheists are for the liberation of women. What i've ascertained, however, from various atheist literature, and personal experience with atheists alike, is that respect for womyn is practiced moreso than what i've obtained from the Christian Lifestyle. Atheists are more reasonable when it comes to equality, or diversity in residence. In many cases, the realm of the household included both Man and the Womyn sharing chores such as cleaning, and cooking. The Womyn's personal Freedom is held in higher regard, the relationship is open to new ideas. For example, the womyn desires to take an art class, the man does not object. Whereas in relative Christian families, the 'woman' is forbade.
Children in Christian families are quite often forced into the religion of their parents. Christianity is a disease of heredity, like aids. Advocating a Doctrine of religion such as Christianity, closes many doors of thought-oppritunity. New ideas are rejected if they oppose Christianity whatsoever-which respectively insists the child is missing out on a lot. It oppresses the mind and once Christian morality has been plagued, their minds are simply closed. (I know this from personal experience, being a former Christian.) In order to progress as a civilization, children should be encouraged to think on their own. We're ill-poised and destine to remain stagnant if we continute to teach redundant Monotheist drivel.
Children of Atheists are not subject to Religious Influence by their Parents, so malignant religious rebuttal isn't embossed on their offspring--at least not by them. The atheist children's (which would be decent to describe them as agnostic) perception of life hasn't been polluted by thought-oppressing religion, henceforth an array of thought paradigms are opened and the child has more potential to be a free thinking, (whether athiest or not) individual humyn being.

Let's look at the ten commandments for a moment. First, read what this thoroughly confused person has to say. " We all know what happens to one who falls off a building or some other height. The law of gravity carries with it a severe penalty. It is one of the laws of nature. We do not doubt its existence, yet we cannot see gravity. We only see its results. The Law of God�the Ten Commandments�act in the same way. We only see the results when we break it. These commandments were given to protect man from the pain and suffering he will surely experience in this physical life by disregarding or failing to appreciate them." <> Ensuing a brief chuckle, I analized this. First, the womyn who writes this (aside from being on the brink of mental breakdown) is confusing science with religion. She writes, "law of gravity" which is a scientific term, discoverd and established by scientists. A creationist would be forced to say it isn't gravity by science, but a force by God. But she says, "We do not doubt its existence." (And a Christian referencing Nature; please.) She then describes the Ten commandments act in the same way as gravity, "we only see the results when we break it." If someone broke the "law of gravity" they would not fall to a death, they would be flying. She also wrote, "These commandments were given to protect man from the pain and suffering he will surely experience in this physical life by disregarding or failing to appreciate them." Does this make sense to you? What she is saying is, if you don't abide by the Commandments we will suffer, assumably, God's wrath. Thou shalt not steal is one of the Ten Commandments. I've seen people steal from super markets before and they certainly did not suddenly burst into flames, or fall to the ground as bubbling sores errupted from their skin. And What about Columbus's elite? They were religious and they stole a whole body of land from the natives.(Natives never claimed ownership, but you understand.) Why weren't they smitted by God? We're living on tainted land. To the point, Christians are morally opposed to theivery and assume Atheists are going to steal, because they do not believe in God. I am an Atheist, I am compassionate, I would consider the fact a person might value their possessions and I wouldn't even contemplate taking that from them. Atheists are prone to agree, because they're more reasonable, they think clearly without religious debris.