Dawkins Choice: Abuse and Religion

How about we let parents teach what they want to their children, and let their children decide, ultimately, if that's what they want to follow for the rest of their lives. Certainly, no minority atheist is going to tell me how to raise my children - that's for damn sure. Similarly, I don't expect an atheist to teach his or her children about Islam, nor would I attempt to pass laws which would force them to do so. Laws and government have no business telling parents what to teach their children.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, it's a tough one. Like population growth. No one dares utter the quota or forced sterilization phrases, but we still plow on blindly toward a future where more and more of our resources go into simply feeding everyone until the inevitable conclusion where the system fails catastrophically and billions die off in an orgy of starvation and disease.

What to do, what to do...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well if you're worried about population, its a good idea to start at home, don't you think?

Stop burning food in your car, use less of the planets resources to support an unsustainable lifestyle, etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Exactly. Just like they have no place telling you if and when you can have kids...

Hungry yet?

 

Yep. What do you propose?

 

Who is "they"?

 

The minority atheists or the government - as you said in your post?

 

See the petition that Dawkins signed. And inasmuch as there are parents who may teach children things that are wrong, is there any justification for taking children away from them? What if these Christians were leading your society and decided you weren't doing a good enough job of adapting your kids to their values. Would they then be justified in removing them from your custody? Would they be right to judge you for having different beliefs?

Were the missionaries right to take away the savage children to teach them a better way?

 

You know some pretty weird theists. Regardless, the reverse argument holds true as well: is it abuse if parents who are atheists do not allow their children to explore or believe in anything else (as in, religion)? Also, children don't stay children forever, in case you haven't noticed - when they're free from their parents' nurture and care, they can make their own decisions and form their own beliefs. What parents teach children cannot be interfered with by outside forces like the government. Which seems more reasonable: allowing parents to teach their children what they themselves believe in (unconditionally), or forcing parents who believe in anything other than pure atheism to keep their teachings to themselves? C'mon now, let's be realistic.

It's less abusive to tell them that when they die they simply rot and never see their family or friends again? If I'm a kid, that's going to scare me more than hellfire.

 

This whole thing is rediculous. No one is going to police what you personally wish to teach your children. Does anyone take this crap seriously?

 

Its not without precedent. But, in any such argument, I am going to be very firmly on my side.

 

Exactly. I'd hate to have lived in the xian middle ages.

 

Not really, but it makes for great debate material. Obviously, Dawkins' bizarre plans will never see the light of day.

 

Or present day Tibet, China or North Korea.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He seems to be going a bit loony tunes over this whole atheist thing, dosen't he?

 

Yep.

 

You're kidding. I hope. There is a community to counter such effects. Nobody should be ostracised for their beliefs, even if they are whacky. This is the exact same argument used by the missionaries who took away children from the savage parents.

 

Seems like it, from what I've heard. To be honest, I barely pay him any attention. For some reason, I'm not a big fan of getting religious information from a die-hard atheist. That's just me, though.

I must say, I've heard nothing but good things about his biological background. Seems like he's got something really good going for him in the sciences. He should probably stick to that.