Dawkins Choice: Abuse and Religion

[iceaura]

How many atheists you think will emphasize to their children that the communists who killed most people in the last century were driven by the same anti-theism that drives Dawkins?

Oh bullshit. From repudiating Darwin in the official circles on down to killing Jews because they killed Jesus in the peasant villages, from sending fellow atheists to reeducation camps because they favored private property to killing people with glasses because they resembled the technocrats who sent the bombers, none of the nominally atheistic mass murder events of the time resembles Dawkins's school of anti-theism in the slightest.

After all, he is no more shy of marketing himself as an upholder of science that they did with Marxism

Upholding Marxism, instead of science, would be a significant difference in kind from Dawkins's endeavors.

So are children who are exposed by atheist parents to atheist philosophies, not having their decision "made for them"?

Depends on the nature of the "exposure", and of the "philosophy". Not usually, would be my guess.

 

[Gustav]

Do your experiences differ ?

yes
exceptions rather than the rule
show me the regulations where religiosity is explicitly favored

How many atheists you think will emphasize to their children that the communists who killed most people in the last century were driven by the same anti-theism that drives Dawkins?

cite or disavow

 

[krokah]

Sam, how do you get a nun pregnant? Dress her as an alter boy!

 

[iceaura]

show me the regulations where religiosity is explicitly favored

None can exist, in the US - at least, not past court challenge.

It's in the play, not the rules.

One very clear example is dated, due to the revocation of the military draft, but the basic situation has not changed: conscientious objector status with regard to military service depended largely on theistic belief, even the specific sect of Christianity involved made a difference.

Welfare boards, child custody hearings, and the like, operate in many ways similarly to draft boards in their reflection of community standards.

 

[Gustav]

i understand
its local govt/boards/whatnot round these parts
schools and id come to mind

 

[S.A.M.]

None. I am an atheist.

There is a plethora of differences, most of them minute..

Exactly. Parents make decisions for their children all the time.

Oh bullshit. From repudiating Darwin in the official circles on down to killing Jews because they killed Jesus in the peasant villages, from sending fellow atheists to reeducation camps because they favored private property to killing people with glasses because they resembled the technocrats who sent the bombers, none of the nominally atheistic mass murder events of the time resembles Dawkins's school of anti-theism in the slightest.

I suggest you take a look at the five steps to atheism strategy the Soviets were promoting.

Upholding Marxism, instead of science, would be a significant difference in kind from Dawkins's endeavors.

Really? Lets see...

An intense ideological anti-Christian and anti-religious campaign was carried out throughout the history of the Soviet Union. An extensive education and propaganda campaign was undertaken to convince people, especially the children and youth, not to become believers. The role of the Christian religion and the Church was painted in black colors in school textbooks. For instance, much emphasis was placed on the role of the Church in such historical horror stories as the Inquisition, persecution of Galileo, Giordano Bruno, and other heretical scientists, and the Crusades. School students were encouraged to taunt and use peer pressure against classmates wearing crosses or otherwise professing their faith. In the 1920s there were many "anti-God" publications and social clubs sponsored by the government, most notably the scathingly satirical "Godless at the Workbench" ("Bezbozhnik u Stanka" in Russian).

A "scientific" perspective was used to attack religion extensively. The Church was portrayed as obscurantist and opposed to the findings of science. Much was made of alleged Christian belief in the literal Creation account in the book of Genesis which the pro-Darwinian textbooks ridiculed.[citation needed] As part of the anti-foreign and anti-capitalist propaganda, an effort was made, especially in the 1920s and 1930s, to imprint in the minds of the people an image of the West as dominated by the anti-scientific ignorance of the Church, as opposed to the scientifically "progressive" atheist Soviet state

Doesn't sound like it. That paragraph wouldn't have to be changed much to be about Dawkins.

Depends on the nature of the "exposure", and of the "philosophy". Not usually, would be my guess.

Yeah right.

 

[lepustimidus]

Bringing up a child in a secular environment =/= forcing atheism on them.

 

[S.A.M.]

Bringing up a child in a secular environment =/= forcing atheism on them.

atheist != secular.

 

[lepustimidus]

Um, yeah, that's my point S.A.M.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm talking about atheist parents here, not secular ones.

Atheist parents could be said to be depriving their children of religion as a part of their life, as well. They don't really give them much choice, do they?

 

[krokah]

Regardless of the environment a child is brought up in a norm is established in regards to how you live, what you think is right or wrong, and what your belief system is. This is true in all households until outside factors impact this norm and changes it. Being brought up in the "Blue Law Zone" in the south everything was governed by whatever church was dominant in that town. There was nothing for growing kids to do. No movies, no dances, just church. All us kids did was drink and screw our brains out from boredom. The profound belief in God did not affect the way I chose to live. My belief in a higher being does not infer a belief in the standard view of God in american society. Yes, kids adopt norms from the family enviroment. But I wouldn't say that bringing them up a god/antigod enviroment is abuse unless it led to physical contact.

 

[lepustimidus]

S.A.M:

I'm talking about atheist parents here, not secular ones.

So atheist parents can't be secular?

Atheist parents could be said to be depriving their children of religion as a part of their life, as well. They don't really give them much choice, do they?

The same could be said of secular parents. And your point is...?

 

[S.A.M.]

S.A.M:

So atheist parents can't be secular?

No more or less than religious parents, I presume.

The same could be said of secular parents.

Yup

And your point is...?

That was it.

 

[lepustimidus]

S.A.M:

No more or less than religious parents, I presume.

Religious parents raise their children in a secular environment?

 

[(Q)]

I'm talking about atheist parents here, not secular ones.

Atheist parents could be said to be depriving their children of religion as a part of their life, as well. They don't really give them much choice, do they?

On the contrary, those children are taught about all religions, giving them many choices over those children who are indoctrinated into one religion, their parents religion.

 

[(Q)]

You're thinking like an atheist. If I believe in one set of values or one philosophy or one kind of moral system over another, that is what I would teach my children. Regardless of how many are out there. Just because there are many different opinions on how children should be punished, for instance, does not mean I will try out all of them, only the ones I agree with. Same as for any other value system.

In other words, you will indoctrinate your children into your religion, without teaching them the other religions. Just like you were indoctrinated. Yes, we know the pattern.

How many atheists you think will emphasize to their children that the communists who killed most people in the last century were driven by the same anti-theism that drives Dawkins?

Why would you want to lie to your children, Sam? Don't you think they will eventually go to school and learn that communism is not driven by atheism? Or will you only teach them the Quran?

Your children should grow up despising you, Sam, if that's your plans for them.

 

[Bells]

Exactly. Parents make decisions for their children all the time.

Heh. No. Not really.

I have a two year old who already tells me that he wants to wear his "police car shirt", etc. He also tells me that he wants "nooooodles" for dinner or "wice" (rice).

How is an atheist parent(s) letting their child decide for themselves "making decisions for their children"? You mean we have decided to not force them into any form or belief or atheism? Yes, in that sense we have made decisions for our children. Hardly the same as baptising a baby or worse, circumcising it (if it is a he) and plonking it in a religious faith it without even allowing said child to have a say in the matter. Don't you think children should have a say in such things that would play such a large part of its life? Don't you think children should decide for themselves whether there is a God or not? And if they think there is a God, don't you think they should be free to decide for themselves which religion is best suited to them, without pressure from its parents, family, society, etc?

Atheist parents could be said to be depriving their children of religion as a part of their life, as well. They don't really give them much choice, do they?

How do we deprive our children of religion? You don't think we can actually discuss religion with our children? Answer their questions? Direct them to someone of that particular faith if they have questions we, as parents, are unable to answer?

You still don't get it. We don't deprive our children of religion. We allow them the freedom to choose what they want for themselves, without denying them that right to something that is fundamental in their lives. We don't force children to believe in God, telling them they have to or they go to hell. Nor do we force them to not believe in God. That would be impossible, because atheism is something that each individual has to decide for themselves. And giving children the right to make such decisions is important, because it affects their lives. By placing them in a religion from birth, theists deny the child its right to choose for itself. Some also use fear as a motivating factor to keep the child in said religion. Some terrorise their children and others use physical abuse to maintain control and to force the child to adhere to its parents religious doctrines.

 

[Gustav]

Doesn't sound like it. That paragraph wouldn't have to be changed much to be about Dawkins.

by gad!
brilliant, sam

 

[S.A.M.]

Heh. No. Not really.

I have a two year old who already tells me that he wants to wear his "police car shirt", etc. He also tells me that he wants "nooooodles" for dinner or "wice" (rice).

Who decides what he will wear or eat? Why does he need to tell you?

You still don't get it. We don't deprive our children of religion. We allow them the freedom to choose what they want for themselves, without denying them that right to something that is fundamental in their lives. We don't force children to believe in God, telling them they have to or they go to hell. Nor do we force them to not believe in God. That would be impossible, because atheism is something that each individual has to decide for themselves. And giving children the right to make such decisions is important, because it affects their lives. By placing them in a religion from birth, theists deny the child its right to choose for itself. Some also use fear as a motivating factor to keep the child in said religion. Some terrorise their children and others use physical abuse to maintain control and to force the child to adhere to its parents religious doctrines.

So basically, its your decision to bring up your child without religion; to miss out on all the experiences/advantages that being in a religious environment would entail. Because you prefer atheism to theism.

Your children should grow up despising you, Sam, if that's your plans for them.

If the Dawkins movement goes on as Marxism did (started with a harmless fellow spouting ideal societies, if I recall), they'll see for themselves what the result of militant atheism can be.

 

[Bells]

Who decides what he will wear or eat? Why does he need to tell you?

Why does he need to tell me? Because he wants to wear his favourite shirt and eat his favourite food. Since he can't dress himself properly yet, nor is he allowed to go near naked flame to cook his own food, he tells us what he wants to wear and eat, as well as drink.

So basically, its your decision to bring up your child without religion; to miss out on all the experiences/advantages that being in a religious environment would entail. Because you prefer atheism to theism.

If I were to bring my children up without religion of any sort, they would be denied the right to see their grandparents, as well as many of their cousins and our own friends. All of whom are theist, from different religious beliefs and backgrounds.

You're grasping here Sam.

I bring my children up to be free to decide for themselves.

Had you read Dawkins book, you'd see he does say the same thing.. to give children the freedom to decide for themselves whether there is a God or not.. to give them the freedom to be religious or not.. To give them the information necessary to allow them to make an educated choice, instead of being forced into a belief system they might very well grow up rejecting or disagreeing with and then end up feeling guilty or being made to feel fear because of it.