"God Delusion" author Richard Dawkins complains that "Our society, including the nonreligious sector, has accepted the preposterous idea that it is normal and right to indoctrinate tiny children in the religion of their parents, and to slap religious labels on them — 'Catholic child,' 'Protestant child,' 'Jewish child,' 'Muslim child,' etc."
Dawkins says those "labels" are "always a form of child abuse" and concludes:
"Maybe some children need to be protected from indoctrination by their own parents."
There you have it. Dawkins is at least playing around with the idea of using the powers of the state to prevent Christian parents from raising children in the Christian faith.
The whole idea of separation of church and state is that however much we might like to use the power of the state to advance a religious agenda, since the state is inherently coercive, we've got to back off. I may want to lead my third grade class in prayer, but if I get to do it, then I have to let the Catholic teacher next door do it, or the atheist or Mormon or Satanist down the hall do it, and I have to leave the atheist (or whoever else doesn't concur with my prayer) out, and so I have a duty to forbear out of respect for the beliefs of others.
The thinking that leads to religious persecution goes like this: those guys over there who are teaching false religious claims are exposing others to a greater likelihood of eternal damnation. So we have to stop these people no matter what it takes. Maybe people need to be protected from false teaching. Believe me, religious persecutors have everyone's best interests at heart.
So do anti-religious persecutors. Removing eternal damnation from the picture doesn't eliminate the temptation to persecute. They will say that these religious people may not be exposing people to hell, but they are spreading scientific illiteracy and possibly ushering in a new dark age, and they just have to be stopped.
If I were told that I could not teach Christianity to my children, you can bet I would consider myself to be a victim of persecution. (Unfortunately for Dawkins, we already "indoctrinated" our kids, and they are dedicated Christian adults now.)
Yes, yes, I know, Dawkins says maybe. And the next atheist that comes along will say definitely. And it will be more tempting for these people to say definitely the closer they are to acquiring political power.
10 comments:
The chemical arrangement of my brain is telling me that I don't need to listen to Dawkins.
Krauze, at TelicThoughts, commenting on this particular DawkinsDelusion: "Since Richard Dawkins withdrew his support for a petition to make religious upbringing illegal, many are now trying to make it look as if the petition was so out of tune with the rest of Dawkins' writings that only those with an irrational hatred of him could believe that he had truly endorsed it. ..."
Here is the (apparently initial) entry at TelicThoughts concerning the aforementioned petition and Dawkin's initial public support of it: UK petition against religious upbringing
Something from the horse's mouth. RichardDawkins.Net: Religion's Real Child Abuse "...Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of bringing them up Catholic in the first place.
...
... But reports of child abuse cover a multitude of sins, from mild fondling to violent buggery, and I am sure many of those cases now embarrassing the church fall at the mild end of the spectrum . Doubtless, too, some fall at the violent end, which is terrible but I would make two points about it. First, just because some pedophile assaults are violent and painful, it doesn't mean that all are. A child too young to notice what is happening at the hands of a gentle pedophile will have no difficulty at all in noticing the pain inflicted by a violent one. Phrases like 'predatory monster' are not discriminating enough, and are framed in the light of adult hang-ups. Second (and this is the point with which I began) the mental abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated threat of violence and terrible pain, if sincerely believed by the child, could easily be more damaging than the physical actuality of sexual abuse. An extreme threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is. And there is no doubt at all that many children sincerely believe it, often continuing right through adulthood and old age until death finally releases them."
Please! must we pretend we're stupid just to allow some 'atheists' to pretend they (and we) don't clearly see Dawkins' agenda? If bringing up one's children in one's faith is indeed worse "abuse" than "gentle pedophilia" than certain things logically follow.
Without commenting specifically on Dawkins since I don't know the full context of his remarks, you're certainly right to oppose the idea of preventing parents from passing on their religious traditions to their children in their homes.
I think this idea may actually be less dangerous than silly. I mean, it's totally unworkable. No one can stop parents from doing that.
I'm reminded as well of Dennett's remark that Baptists should be confined to "cultural zoos", and society should not be "tolerating the deliberate misinforming of [their] children about the natural world". *Shudder*
We can talk about religious upbringing all we want, but real child abuse is a much more serious problem. And teachers are the key to detecting it and preventing it. Yet when teachers notice signs of child abuse in a student in their class, they often don't know what to say. A new online role-playing course lets teachers rehearse a conversation with a possible child abuse victim, getting feedback after every choice. There's a free version and a CEU-credit version. Whatever happens with the religious controversies, we can all agree that child abuse is bad -- and that teachers can help stop it.
I gave a link to some full context.
"Maybe some children need to be protected from indoctrination by their own parents."
There you have it. Dawkins is at least playing around with the idea of using the powers of the state to prevent Christian parents from raising children in the Christian faith.
To be clear, Dawkins is specifically referring to parents who teach their children Six Day Creationism, the Flood, etc. Even orthodox Christians have a hard time when they feel heterodox Christians are putting their children at physical risk (for example, not allowing surgery because the soul will leave the body, or not allowing a blood transfusion), Dawkins is extending this idea to mental risk. I think he is still overreacting, as the ranks of atheists have no shortage of people who came from a literalist background, but he is not advocating the end to all religious instruction, just the ones that put literalism above evidence.
http://bj77.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/dawkins-and-child-abuse/
One Brow: To be clear, Dawkins is specifically referring to parents who teach their children Six Day Creationism, the Flood, etc. Even orthodox Christians have a hard time when they feel heterodox Christians are putting their children at physical risk (for example, not allowing surgery because the soul will leave the body, or not allowing a blood transfusion), Dawkins is extending this idea to mental risk. I think he is still overreacting, as the ranks of atheists have no shortage of people who came from a literalist background, but he is not advocating the end to all religious instruction, just the ones that put literalism above evidence.
VR: And who is going to decide which religious instructors are putting literalism above evidence pray tell me? Remember, Dawkins says the God is a delusion and religious moderates are as bad as fanatics.
VR: And who is going to decide which religious instructors are putting literalism above evidence pray tell me?
I don't think Dawkins has a carefully worked-out plan here, since he won't even firmly commit to the idea that it is child abuse.
However, in some parallel world where counter-evidential teachings were prohibited, the best arbiters would probably be the religious people who did not accept a literalist interpretation. I'd much rather trust a Ken Miller, Wesley Elsberry, and/or Ed Brayton with such decisions over Dawkins, Harris, et. al.
Remember, Dawkins says the God is a delusion and religious moderates are as bad as fanatics.
I'm sure he feels that is true in some respects.
Post a Comment