![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ljwritesIn the past two posts I detailed how I got into a spat with an anti-theist about his seeming proposal to ban the religious education of children, with a detour into how I was a raging asshole to another commenter. I was curious whether movement atheists had discussed the issue of forbidding the religious instruction of children by their parents and guardians outside of public school. EJ, the commenter I'd had the main argument with, had presented his position as common among anti-theists and I wondered if that was the case.
A little research revealed that prominent anti-theists like British biologist Richard Dawkins were in fact critical of "indoctrinating" children, that is instructing children to follow a specific religion instead of giving them a comparative education in religion, which he favors. I don't find that position objectionable or scary, Criticizing is not the same thing as forbidding. His claim that bringing a child up in religion is tantamount to child abuse is downright insulting, but bad argumentation and misuse of language are not the same thing as advocating the violation of religious liberty.
Other articles I looked up discussed permanent bodily changes such as male circumcision in the context of religious liberty. It argued for a prohibition on circumcising children, including for religious reasons, but didn't bear directly on religious instruction per se. And, you know, male circumcision is a trick subject and there are arguments for and against (link borderline NSFW, contains artwork suggestive of the male organ), but I can see a reasonable case for forbidding parents to make alterations to their children's bodies that are not medically necessary. Some religious denominations might be upset, but if it does turn out that the medical benefits of circumcision as a child are negligible then they'll just have to deal and adjust their schedules accordingly so each penis-haver can make the decision an as adult.
And then, on further searching, I hit paydirt. Evidently there had been a kerfuffle over on atheist circles about a petition to the British government that Richard Dawkins had signed and seemed to be calling for a prohibition on bringing up children in their parents' faith. The link to the original petition no longer works, but see the excerpts on Ed Brayton's post and judge for yourself. The general consensus was that the petition was, at the very least, very poorly worded, and as written it was "highly disturbing," "noxious," and "totalitarian," to quote Brayton.
Dawkins, on realizing what exactly it was he had signed, retracted his signature and wrote to clarify his understanding and intentions. He "of course assumed that it referred to schools, not parents in the privacy of the home," and declared that "The very idea of giving that control freak Tony Blair any more power over people than he already has appals me." He was "horrified by the thought" of such a measure and emphasized that his criticism of indoctrination in families was just that, criticism, not a call for government prohibition.
Among other things, Ed Brayton in his open letter to Dawkins pointed out, in addition to such a prohibition being unthinkable government overreach, on a purely practical level it was likely that atheists themselves would be the targets of such a law given their huge social unpopularity. As commentersloopy777 and lb_lee pointed out in comments to the first post, the difficulties begin right off the bat with defining religion.
The few voices of support I could find for the petition were from the comment sections. Carl Hilton Jones said on the thread for The Panda's Thumb post:
...But he seemed to have confused the petition for something else entirely, since there are existing laws to cover torture and killing of children. I couldn't see anyone agreeing with Carl Hilton Jones, just a comment by Robert O'Brien brushing him off:
Another commenter, tomh on PZ Myers' blog, said:
But this argument, too, was slapped down by another commenter, Zeke:
I like this Zeke's style, though I think he's a little harsh in his indictment of New Atheists. After all, the unwitting originator of the whole mess, a New Atheist himself, did the right thing by retracting his signature and making his opposition to the very idea as clear as possible.
The vast majority of the comments from what I could tell were firmly against the idea. There were some calls for a more charitable reading of the petition, given the differences between the British and American contexts, but if it were to be read as written, the consensus was, it was a very bad idea of monumental proportions. There were also interesting discussions on what kinds of abuse can reasonably be legislated against, the impact of New Atheism on science education, and more.
When Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyer, Ed Brayton, and Nick Matzke, plus a host of intelligent and thoughtful readers think banning religious instruction in the private sphere is a terrible, awful, nasty, no-good idea even in the hypothetical, I think we can safely say it's very far from being a mainstream atheist or even anti-theist position. Those who advocate such a prohibition are in the distant fringe of anti-theist thought. I am at ease, content that most atheists--including the anti-theist variety--are in fact reasonable people who are firm in their convictions of liberty.
Postscript to a postscript: Speaking of child religious instruction, you know who pretty much lived Richard Dawkins' ideal of a comparative religion education? One Barack Hussein Obama, whose grandparents were non-practicing Christians, whose father became an atheist, whose mother was a critic of organized religion and exposed her son to different religious traditions, and whose stepfather was a Muslim.
So what did the 44th President of the United States end up believing as an adult? He's been called everything from a Muslim to the Anti-Christ to an atheist, but see for yourself:
I'll bet Professor Dawkins is thrilled with this example. Seriously, I recommend catching the whole speech, it is a truly inspiring and uplifting example of religious rhetoric in civic life.
A little research revealed that prominent anti-theists like British biologist Richard Dawkins were in fact critical of "indoctrinating" children, that is instructing children to follow a specific religion instead of giving them a comparative education in religion, which he favors. I don't find that position objectionable or scary, Criticizing is not the same thing as forbidding. His claim that bringing a child up in religion is tantamount to child abuse is downright insulting, but bad argumentation and misuse of language are not the same thing as advocating the violation of religious liberty.
Other articles I looked up discussed permanent bodily changes such as male circumcision in the context of religious liberty. It argued for a prohibition on circumcising children, including for religious reasons, but didn't bear directly on religious instruction per se. And, you know, male circumcision is a trick subject and there are arguments for and against (link borderline NSFW, contains artwork suggestive of the male organ), but I can see a reasonable case for forbidding parents to make alterations to their children's bodies that are not medically necessary. Some religious denominations might be upset, but if it does turn out that the medical benefits of circumcision as a child are negligible then they'll just have to deal and adjust their schedules accordingly so each penis-haver can make the decision an as adult.
And then, on further searching, I hit paydirt. Evidently there had been a kerfuffle over on atheist circles about a petition to the British government that Richard Dawkins had signed and seemed to be calling for a prohibition on bringing up children in their parents' faith. The link to the original petition no longer works, but see the excerpts on Ed Brayton's post and judge for yourself. The general consensus was that the petition was, at the very least, very poorly worded, and as written it was "highly disturbing," "noxious," and "totalitarian," to quote Brayton.
Dawkins, on realizing what exactly it was he had signed, retracted his signature and wrote to clarify his understanding and intentions. He "of course assumed that it referred to schools, not parents in the privacy of the home," and declared that "The very idea of giving that control freak Tony Blair any more power over people than he already has appals me." He was "horrified by the thought" of such a measure and emphasized that his criticism of indoctrination in families was just that, criticism, not a call for government prohibition.
Among other things, Ed Brayton in his open letter to Dawkins pointed out, in addition to such a prohibition being unthinkable government overreach, on a purely practical level it was likely that atheists themselves would be the targets of such a law given their huge social unpopularity. As commenters
loopy777 and lb_lee pointed out in comments to the first post, the difficulties begin right off the bat with defining religion.The few voices of support I could find for the petition were from the comment sections. Carl Hilton Jones said on the thread for The Panda's Thumb post:
No moral person could possibly object to the petition. Needless to say, most Amereicans [sic] are immoral. Specifically, I live in a state (Arizona, one of many) that specifically protects the “rights” of religious parents to physically torture and kill their children in the name of religion.
...But he seemed to have confused the petition for something else entirely, since there are existing laws to cover torture and killing of children. I couldn't see anyone agreeing with Carl Hilton Jones, just a comment by Robert O'Brien brushing him off:
"Carl Hilton Jones wrote:
No moral person could possibly object to the petition. Needless to say, most Amereicans are immoral."
That assertion is all kinds of stupid.
Another commenter, tomh on PZ Myers' blog, said:
The only mistake Dawkins made was backing away from the petition. In a perfect world the intent behind the petition would indeed be the law. Why should adults have the right to indoctrinate children, whether their own or any others, into any kind of cult, religious or otherwise? The petition properly says nothing about what adults can or should believe. The hysterical charge of “totalitarianism” is ridiculous – it is no more totalitarian than other laws we have about what adults are allowed to do to children.
As far as teaching comparative religion, when religion can be taught as a quaint, historical curiosity, then one will be able to say that mankind has made a small step forward. Until then religion, comparative or otherwise, should be kept out of schools.
But this argument, too, was slapped down by another commenter, Zeke:
I thought this was some kind of creationist parody meant to make atheists look like extremists with totalitarian sympathies, but apparently it’s serious…
"The only mistake Dawkins made was backing away from the petition. In a perfect world the intent behind the petition would indeed be the law. Why should adults have the right to indoctrinate children, whether their own or any others, into any kind of cult, religious or otherwise? The petition properly says nothing about what adults can or should believe. The hysterical charge of “totalitarianism” is ridiculous – it is no more totalitarian than other laws we have about what adults are allowed to do to children."
If you think for a second about policemen and judges monitoring what parents tell their children in the home, you have your answer. You’d have to post guards outside of churches to keep parents from taking their kids there on Sunday. Such a law would violate freedom of speech and freedom of religion for starters. You might as well just run the Constitution through the shredder while you’re at it.
Your position deserves every bit of scorn and vitriol that Ed Brayton would aim at it. The ACLU would justifiably sue you for everything you’ve got if you implemented this policy as a governmental official.
"As far as teaching comparative religion, when religion can be taught as a quaint, historical curiosity, then one will be able to say that mankind has made a small step forward. Until then religion, comparative or otherwise, should be kept out of schools.
Posted by: tomh"
Oh, that makes a ton of sense. Even Dawkins thinks your position is stupid. Comparative religion is important simply to understand world history and current world events. Damaging secular education in some misguided plot to promote your own view on religion? Why don’t you just sign up with the Discovery Institute right now?
You are as much a crazed fundy as the loons at WorldNet Daily. If atheists wonder why they have an image problem, here is exhibit A. The fact that the New Atheists didn’t give this kind of idiocy a good preemptive stomping just to keep the loons out of their movement is exhibit B, and the likely weak reaction from the New Atheists here on this blog is exhibit C.
I like this Zeke's style, though I think he's a little harsh in his indictment of New Atheists. After all, the unwitting originator of the whole mess, a New Atheist himself, did the right thing by retracting his signature and making his opposition to the very idea as clear as possible.
The vast majority of the comments from what I could tell were firmly against the idea. There were some calls for a more charitable reading of the petition, given the differences between the British and American contexts, but if it were to be read as written, the consensus was, it was a very bad idea of monumental proportions. There were also interesting discussions on what kinds of abuse can reasonably be legislated against, the impact of New Atheism on science education, and more.
When Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyer, Ed Brayton, and Nick Matzke, plus a host of intelligent and thoughtful readers think banning religious instruction in the private sphere is a terrible, awful, nasty, no-good idea even in the hypothetical, I think we can safely say it's very far from being a mainstream atheist or even anti-theist position. Those who advocate such a prohibition are in the distant fringe of anti-theist thought. I am at ease, content that most atheists--including the anti-theist variety--are in fact reasonable people who are firm in their convictions of liberty.
Postscript to a postscript: Speaking of child religious instruction, you know who pretty much lived Richard Dawkins' ideal of a comparative religion education? One Barack Hussein Obama, whose grandparents were non-practicing Christians, whose father became an atheist, whose mother was a critic of organized religion and exposed her son to different religious traditions, and whose stepfather was a Muslim.
So what did the 44th President of the United States end up believing as an adult? He's been called everything from a Muslim to the Anti-Christ to an atheist, but see for yourself:
I'll bet Professor Dawkins is thrilled with this example. Seriously, I recommend catching the whole speech, it is a truly inspiring and uplifting example of religious rhetoric in civic life.
no subject
Date: 2015-06-29 01:28 am (UTC)The religious ones (because cults come in ALL flavors; I know of an atheist transhumanist one) claim that they're just like all other religions, but they're NOT. Cults have a very specific MO: their primary purpose is to enrich their leader/s, either through money, sex, or power. Now, you can argue all you like about whether the Pope is a cult leader, but that doesn't make it true. Whatever my personal feelings on him and his religion, he actually DOES SHIT besides raise money for himself. There is at least some way the Pope could be ousted if he did something horrible enough, murder a kitten on tape or something.
--Rogan
no subject
Date: 2015-06-30 02:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-06-30 02:42 pm (UTC)Mori: Euphemisms just annoy me, in general. You see a TON of them when it comes to rape. "Child sexual abuse" gives a lot of room for people to weasel around, go, "Well, ANYTHING could be child sexual abuse! A look, totally up to interpretation, could be child sexual abuse!" They bank on me not being willing to go into disgusting detail. Pisses me off.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-01 01:52 pm (UTC)Wish I knew! They just called it a life-saving medical procedure, which I'm sure helps distinguish it from the other thousands and thousands of life-saving medical procedures out there. I'm going to suggest "baby's trip to la-la land" if they persist with this foolishness.
It's cowardice, moral and otherwise. They'd rather go on pretending that everything is just fine and they don't have to care, as you guys pointed out in FAM2. It's even worse when they hide behind victims to do it--don't say the word, or you'll upset the people who actually suffered! The "don't call it abortion" person used that argument, too, that it's cruel to tell a woman who had a life-saving whatever it is that she'd had an abortion. Well then, don't. People are free to put what words they want to their experience, but it's ridiculous to suggest we need to change established legal and scientific definitions to avoid hurting victims' ickle feelings. Some of them NEED that specificity, and many of them are a lot braver than the "let's euphemize it out of existence!" crowd will ever be.
no subject
Date: 2015-06-30 02:47 pm (UTC)Funny, it seems that when birth control and abortion weren't available, a LOT of people abandoned their children! Stats are obviously hard to find, but there are historical references saying stuff like 10% of children were abandoned.
I was already pro-abortion, but that helped cement it. The adoption system is already overloaded, let's not encourage a RETURN to those times.
--Rogan
no subject
Date: 2015-07-01 02:00 pm (UTC)