Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Update: at the insistence of several readers, please be advised that Dawkins has now repudiated his signature on that petition and asked that it be taken off. You can find that retraction in the comments below.
Update #2: Please read my open letter to Richard Dawkins, which I think brings the whole thing to an end. click here.
MikeGene responds to my post about his typology and offers some information I was completely unaware of. He points me to this petition, which Richard Dawkins has signed and is promoting on his website, as evidence that Dawkins does indeed favor coercion to stop religious belief:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16.In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians.
This I was completely unaware of, and I find it highly disturbing. And I agree with him, this is absolutely evidence that Dawkins does indeed favor coercion to try and stamp out religion. Let me make this clear: no government has the authority to decide what views they may teach to their children. Indeed, I would argue that the absolute last thing that any atheist wants to do is to encourage government to take such authority, because believe me, it's a hell of a lot more likely that you're gonna find it illegal to teach your beliefs than it is to make it illegal to teach someone else's beliefs.
This proposal is every bit as noxious and totalitarian as a proposal from Christian reconstructionists that those who teach their children about witchcraft or atheism should be thrown in jail would be. Just imagine what you would have to do to actually enforce such a law. No one could take their children to church, which means you'd have to literally police the churches to make sure no children went in. Nor could they teach their children about religion at home, read the Bible with them, say prayers with them before they go to bed. The only way to enforce such a law would be to create a society that would make Orwell's 1984 seem optimistic by comparison.
As far as I'm concerned, this pretty much removes Dawkins from any discussion among reasonable people. The atheist dystopia he seems to favor is no less appalling than the Christian dystopia favored by people like RJ Rushdoony. Both seek to make government the enforcer of their ideological views, to punish those who believe differently or dare to advocate those views. I cannot abide totalitarians of any stripe.
Comments
We should be fine if we just keep him away from Mr(s). Garrison.
Posted by: Soldats | December 29, 2006 2:35 PM
Atheists have been going on a lot lately about how horrible it is to teach kids about religion. It's starting to remind me of an earlier era, when intolerant Christians forcibly took Native American kids away from their "Heathen savage" parents to ensure that they would not grow up in darkness, damned to Hell for not having heard the Word of God. They were, of course, thinking of nothing but the best interests of the children. It's the same bigotry, the same simpleminded intolerance of differing views, and the same desire to completely liquidate any society or family that stands outside the "right" ideology.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 29, 2006 2:36 PM
I agree completely, Raging Bee. And atheists, of all people, ought to know better. Give that power to a government that panders to the religious right and they sure as hell aren't gonna like the outcome.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 29, 2006 2:42 PM
While I think it would be a terrible idea to try to prevent parents from teaching their kids about religion (and how would such a law be enforced, anyway?), I notice this petition doesn't make any special exceptions for atheism. Would it affect your opinion, Ed, if Dawkins was of the belief that indoctrinating children in atheism would be just as bad as indoctrinating them in some religion?
Posted by: Ebonmuse | December 29, 2006 2:43 PM
Is there a way to confirm that Dawkins has actually signed this petition? I mean, I see his name there....but a) one would think somebody could easily sign it for him, and b) there is sure to be at least more than one Richard Dawkins living in England.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 29, 2006 2:44 PM
As a fan of Dawkins's newest work as well as of the newfound prominence of several public atheists like Sam Harris, this is indeed quite off-putting. Doesn't Dawkins realize that exposure to religion is often capable of turning folks *into* atheists? Certainly worked for me. Don't *not* teach kids religion, just teach it to them neutrally. Like Penn Jillette says, "Read the bible. Become an atheist."
Posted by: Will E. | December 29, 2006 2:45 PM
It would be a good thing if people didn't indoctrinate their kids into religion. It would be a worse thing to try to have governments enforce this, however.
Posted by: steve s | December 29, 2006 2:46 PM
Raging Bee: Are atheists *really* going on a lot lately about how horrible it is to teach kids about religion? Indoctrination in is different from teaching about. Even Richard Dawkins has a relatively lengthy section in the God Delusion about the christian bible as a literary work and its value from that perspective. He even (IIRC) slightly bemoans the fact that hardly anyone knows what's really in the bible. I wouldn't take this as an endorsement of "how horrible it is to teach kids about religion."
As for Ed's original point, I agree with him, though. As lame as I think it is that parents indoctrinate their kids, I can't imagine the carnage that would occur if we asked government to step in to help us manage this.
Posted by: Chris F. | December 29, 2006 2:50 PM
While I think the principle behind what the petition is saying is more than sound, I think this particular idea is just silly and stupid.
I don't agree with this though:
One seeks to indoctrinate into kids a particular brand of superstition the other seeks to let them choose when they are old enough to do so. I don't see a parallel.
They were, of course, thinking of nothing but the best interests of the children
The difference again is that they where causing real world harm for a belief with no basis in reality. Just because you believe jibberish doesn't mean your hearts in the right place when you see it causing harm.
I don't think any government should tell people what to teach their kids. Which is of course why this crap will be going on long after any of us exist.
Posted by: GH | December 29, 2006 2:52 PM
Care to contextualize this with Popper's concept of historicism, Ed?
Posted by: Rich | December 29, 2006 3:00 PM
Ebonmuse wrote:
Absolutely not. The government simply has no legitimate authority to make any such laws, period.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 29, 2006 3:01 PM
Gretchen wrote:
The fact that he is promoting the petition on his webpage seems like a pretty good indicator that he did sign it and does support it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 29, 2006 3:05 PM
GH wrote:
You just nailed the parallel: both groups use the "protect the children" excuse to create a totalitarian society. It's the society that would inevitably result that is the common dystopia, regardless of the pretense used to promote it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 29, 2006 3:08 PM
Rich wrote:
If I had any idea what you were talking about, I suppose I might.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 29, 2006 3:10 PM
I know you're looking for a reason to rail at Dawkins, but it's pretty clear from the wording that they're talking about the teaching of religion at school, and the official designation of children as belonging to a religion. It would help if you had some understanding of the British school system, in which religious schools are state financed, and religious instruction is by law a compulsory element of the curriculum.
It is sloppy wording, I admit. But on the other hand, there is no reason why petitioners in one country should write their petitions so people in an entirely different country should understand what they're asking for.
This will help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Act_1944
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | December 29, 2006 3:13 PM
Dawkins's position on teaching religion is far more nuanced than that petition's. It was still a shame he signed it, though.
As for the libertarian argument that "the government simply has no legitimate authority to make any such laws", it sure would, if religious indoctrination were considered child abuse as Dawkins argues. Parental rights do not extend to the right to physically or psychologically harm a child. That's the crux (ahem) of the question.
Posted by: Andrea | December 29, 2006 3:16 PM
Be careful not to lump us all together. This atheist opposes to the last giving government such power to favour or limit religious expression. This is so even if the expression they want to favour accords completely with my own. Dawkins is flatly out to lunch on this one and the petition he is supporting complete rubbish.
I wish I understood what it is with some atheists that makes them think bullying theists is any better than theists bullying them.
Posted by: Dave S. | December 29, 2006 3:17 PM
If the petition did not accurately reflect Dawkins' opinion about teaching kids religion, then Dawkins should not have signed it, nor should he have given it any other kind of support. It's that simple.
As for the argument that religious "indoctrination" "harms" children, that's just the same excuse an earlier generation of Christians used to justify breaking up non-Christian families.
Either prove a specific objectively harmful result from a specific act of "indoctrination," or admit you have no case other than pure bigotry.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 29, 2006 3:23 PM
I wish I understood what it is with some atheists that makes them think bullying theists is any better than theists bullying them.
Abuse, and bullying, are learned behaviors. Think of the abused child who grows up to become an abusive parent.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 29, 2006 3:25 PM
I ask in reference to your comment that "...this is absolutely evidence that Dawkins does indeed favor coercion to try and stamp out religion."
Posted by: Ebonmuse | December 29, 2006 3:25 PM
Gerard Harbison wrote:
I am well aware of the British school system and their established Anglican church. But this petition does not say that they should end that establishment and stop teaching religion in schools (something I would favor completely). It says that they want to "Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16." And in the "more details" section, it says, "In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians." If all they intended to do is do away with government indoctrination, there's no way it would be worded that way. The way it's worded, it makes illegal all religious instruction, including that by parents and in churches. This isn't sloppy wording, the meaning of it is quite clear.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 29, 2006 3:25 PM
The desire to forbid religous indoctrination has nothing to do with bigotry whatsoever.
I've gotta agree with Dawkins on this one. As a person who was raised as a born-again Christian and who's mother was involved with very weird borderline cult churches, I was inflicted with what I now consider mental and emotional child abuse. I also lost my chance to get a good education, because I was so indoctrinated that I believed that formal education was a waste of time, I quite highschool with the permission of my mother and went to Bible school instead of college. Before my indoctrination, I would have gone to college and become a scientist. By the time I was able to fully extract myself from the religious indoctrination that I'd been brainwashed with, I was almost 30 years old. I believe I had some of the best years of my life stolen from me and I lost opportunitites that will never be regained. And, yes, I completely blame my mother for this. We get along now and are friends, but I won't forgive her for this and I don't believe I should. Any there are many children who suffer much more from more severe indoctrination than I did. I consider my case to be somewhat mild.
I do think the government should protect children from assinine actions of their parents. It is OK to forbid parents from physically abusing their children, but not from actions that stunt their mental and emotional growth?
Posted by: writerdddd | December 29, 2006 3:28 PM
Its not at all clear to me that they are just talking about schools. In the Catholic religion confirmation happens before age 16, as does bar/bas mitzva in the Jewish faith. Are these the kind of things that define the child to a group and should be abolished according to the petition? Looks like it to me.
Posted by: Dave S. | December 29, 2006 3:30 PM
I'm sure it does reflect Dawkins' view on the teaching of religion. What is unclear is whether the petition intends the injunction on the regular teaching of religion to go beyond forbidding its teaching in state-financed schools. The 1984 style interpretation that Ed puts on this is not IMO supported by the evidence.
And since you haven't condemned the system of state-financed and -required religious instruction that prevails in the UK, I conclude you're a raging theocrat. Wheeee, hyperbole is fun!
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | December 29, 2006 3:31 PM
Andrea wrote:
We can make lots of variations of this.
"If atheist indoctrination was considered child abuse...."
"If Muslim indoctrination was considered child abuse...."
"If liberal indoctrination was considered child abuse...."
Government simply does not have the authority to make such decisions based on ideas. Based on actions, yes. But the moment the government decides that imparting ideas is tantamount to child abuse, we are in very deep trouble. And atheists - the single most hated and distrusted group in America, ahead of Muslims and everyone else according to numerous polls - should be the absolute last people to want government to have that authority.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 29, 2006 3:31 PM
Ebnomuse wrote:
And having written a few hundred thousand words about the dangers of theocracy, it hardly needs to be said that I am every bit as opposed to coercion to try and inculcate religion or stamp out atheism as well.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 29, 2006 3:33 PM
I do think the government should protect children from assinine actions of their parents. It is OK to forbid parents from physically abusing their children, but not from actions that stunt their mental and emotional growth?
Governments currently set minimum standards of education, which state what children should be required to learn. Parents who refuse to allow their kids to be taught what they are required by law to learn, can, and should, have their decisions countermanded. We don't need to outlaw the teaching of any religion to accomplish this.
...I was inflicted with what I now consider mental and emotional child abuse....And, yes, I completely blame my mother for this. We get along now and are friends, but I won't forgive her for this and I don't believe I should.
You're a grownup now -- you can understand what you were deprived of, and can take corrective action on your own. Stop playing the victim, forgive your parents, and live your life without excuses.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 29, 2006 3:40 PM
writerddd wrote:
Yep, for the obvious reason that there is no objective way of deciding which ideas "stunt their mental and emotional growth." The same argument was used to justify taking Indians away from their parents in the 1800s. After all, not teaching them about Jesus means they're gonna go to hell and that's the ultimate form of child abuse (according to their logic). Again, do you really want the government deciding which views about religion are "child abuse" and which are not? Because I guarantee you that you are far, far more likely to find yourself the victim of those laws than the one writing them.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 29, 2006 3:42 PM
I think there may be some confusion and that two separate petitions are being discussed. One (which is the only one I found being promoted on Dawkins' site) involves religious schools.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/faithschools/
The other petition is the one Ed is referring to. And that one I could not find reference to on Dawkins' site (admittedly, my search was not thorough).
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/freethinking/
Posted by: Savagemutt | December 29, 2006 3:45 PM
The way it's worded, it makes illegal all religious instruction, including that by parents and in churches. This isn't sloppy wording, the meaning of it is quite clear
If we must do this legalistically, para. 1 proposes to make illegal the indoctrination or definition of children by religion. How you'd define 'indoctrination' in a legal document is left as an interesting exercise for the reader.
Para. 2 makes a normative statement that children should not be subjected to regular religious teaching, or 'allowed' to be defined by religious labels. So it does not propose to make illegal all religious instruction. It doesn't even refer to 'all' religious instruction, just that which is 'regular' (which, in the UK, does not mean 'normal' or 'ordinary', as it does in the US; it means 'periodic'. e.g. weekly). And it does not propose to make it illegal. It proposes to make indoctrination and labelling illegal.
Dennett once observed that intellectual honesty requires that you give text the most generous possible reading before criticising it. You are, in fact, giving this text the most ungenerous possible interpretation.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | December 29, 2006 3:46 PM
Gerard Harbison wrote:
The petition doesn't even mention state-financed schools, nor does it mention the established Anglican church. It makes it illegal to indoctrinate religion, period. If they don't intend that, then they need to scrap the petition and start over. The text very clearly goes way beyond what you want it to mean.
For crying out loud, the hundreds of thousands of words I've written condemning religious establishments is not enough?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 29, 2006 3:46 PM
Savagemutt -
Actually, both petitions are linked to from Dawkins' site.
Posted by: Dave Carlson | December 29, 2006 3:49 PM
Ed, could you clarify on what's happening here? This is a really crucial distinction. The former petition is everything you say it is, but the latter petition is (while not maybe the best-worded thing in the world) an entirely reasonable thing for Dawkins to be promoting.
Posted by: Coin | December 29, 2006 3:49 PM
Uh... my previous comment has a typo. "Latter" should be swapped with "former". For clarity, please turn your monitor upside down before reading said comment.
Posted by: Coin | December 29, 2006 3:51 PM
Savagemutt-
I agree completely with the first petition. The second is absolutely appalling. I think the existence of the first petition also undermines the idea that the second one only applies to what is taught in schools. If you do away with faith schools and religion classes in schools, then if the second one applies only to school indoctrination it is superfluous. If Dawkins only wants to do away with government school religious indoctrination, then sign the first petition - that's the solution to that problem. The second one must go far beyond that or it is pointless.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 29, 2006 3:52 PM
I did find the "freethinking" petition on the Dawkins site, but it was in a forum and not posted by an admin. The "faith schools" petition is also promoted on the forum by an admin. Do we have any evidence that Dawkins actually signed or endorsed the first one in any way?
Posted by: MJ Memphis | December 29, 2006 3:57 PM
As stated above, I think this is aimed at the religious indoctrination that is inherent in the UK school system - daily prayers and worship, weekly religious education lessons, publically funded faith schools etc. It is very pervasive at primary school level with children verbally scolded for not singing hymns or closing eyes during prayers (as experienced with my own son).
Can't see why you have to take it out of context, considering so few even bother making it into a church in the UK, schools are the major source of religious indoctrination here.
I think it also focuses on the religious labelling of children through state documentation. I can vividly remember having a document at about the age of 8 that needed completing with the question of religious affiliation. My parents never schooled me in any religion or had me baptised, but the school had all the normal practices, I believed I was a christian as it was drummed into me at school most certainly not at home, didn't even know the difference between protestant and catholic (which was very important apparently) - I then became a self-proclaimed protestant, as my friend was.
Hopefully, after a few more census collections, we in the UK can label children as 'Jedi' instead. A lightsabre and jedi cloak get they should :)
Posted by: melatonin | December 29, 2006 3:57 PM
Savagemutt,
You certainly didn't look around too much. At the very top of Dawkins's site (the third line under "Read the first chapter of The God Delusion" is a link to BOTH petitions.
http://richarddawkins.net/home
Posted by: David Heddle | December 29, 2006 4:01 PM
"In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be...allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians."
How do they define "define?" Do they want to make it illegal for parents to say "My kid is Pagan?" Do they want to prevent parents from encouraging their kids to interact with other kids of the same religious upbringing? This sounds like a blatant abrogation of free speech, freedom of religion, and the right of peaceful assembly. Do these nincompoops really think they can get anywhere by telling people how they may or may not identify their kids?
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 29, 2006 4:01 PM
I would hope that Richard Dawkins would be among the first to acknowledge that any law that mirrors this petition would have no chance of passage or survival. It's clear to me that Dawkins is on a grand publicity tour and that this petition's controversial stance feeds into a larger effort to keep the discussion going in the media. Look at the other stuff next to it at the top of his website.
Is the idea contained in the petition dumb? Yes. Does that completely discredit Dawkins' work? I don't think so. He's been trying for some time to chip away at the idea that religion is exempt from criticism, and also banging the gong that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse. It's all part of the show and an effort to keep the media camera pointing back at him.
Posted by: TWood | December 29, 2006 4:02 PM
Gerard Harbison wrote:
I am giving it the interpretation most plausible based on several factors, all detailed above. I would only add that the fact that Dawkins has declared teaching one's religion to one's children to be child abuse also supports my reading. If he only wants to get rid of indoctrination in schools - which I am 100% in agreement with him about - then the solution is to get rid of government run religious schools, and he's signed a petition to do that. If this petition doesn't do more than that, it is completely pointless, which also supports my reading of it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 29, 2006 4:02 PM
Ed wrote:
For crying out loud, the hundreds of thousands of words I've written condemning religious establishments is not enough?
The 'theocrat' remark was, in fact, directed at Raging Bee. Sorry; my fault for not so designating.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | December 29, 2006 4:02 PM
For that matter, if you search the complete list of signatories on the "freethinking" petition, you will find Dawkins supposedly signed twice, which seems a bit suspicious.
Posted by: MJ Memphis | December 29, 2006 4:04 PM
MJ Memphis wrote:
It's linked to right at the very top, in the middle, next to "Petitions". Both petitions are linked to.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 29, 2006 4:05 PM
Ah... I somehow missed the petition link that David Heddle spotted. In that case, sad to say but Dawkins has made a blunder, IMO.
Posted by: MJ Memphis | December 29, 2006 4:06 PM
How does one indoctrinate someone to not believe something for which they wouldn't believe if you didn't indoctrinate them in the first place?
Really how would one indoctrinate something which has no doctrine or dogma?
Posted by: GH | December 29, 2006 4:06 PM
If this was the case, they should have simply changed:
to
But they didn't.
Posted by: Coin | December 29, 2006 4:07 PM
Gerard,
It seems to me you're investing a great effort in the argument that Dawkins and/or the freethinking petition may not actually mean what most reasonable people believe he/it means. Dawkins, as far as I know, is not issuing clarifications even though all or virtually all the internet chatter assumes that what is meant is that parents cannot rear their children as, for example, a Roman Catholic. As for allowing some religious education, I think it is clear that what is meant is academic style education--such as Comparative World Religions.
Posted by: David Heddle | December 29, 2006 4:07 PM
David Heddle:
Oops, you're right. I just did a search for "e-petition" in the archives, which brought up the religious school petition, but not the other. As I said, I didn't search very thoroughly.
I agree that the "stop indoctrination..." petition is disgusting, and as an atheist I'm disappointed at Dawkin's apparent support for it.
Posted by: Savagemutt | December 29, 2006 4:09 PM
GH,
Simple. What if a child announced that he believes in God. (Where he acquired the belief is irrelevant.) And his atheist parents tell him: you must not believe in superstition. That would clearly be indoctrination--and it should be allowed.
Posted by: David Heddle | December 29, 2006 4:12 PM
If this was the case, they should have simply changed:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16.
to
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal for the government to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16.
But they didn't.
The government doesn't currently indoctrinate children. That's left to schools, which are financed but largely not run by the government. The government, however, compels them to have religious worship and religious instruction in the school.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | December 29, 2006 4:12 PM
Sorry for the double post I missed this:
I'm sorry but this callous reply is exactly why Dawkins thinks it's child abuse. Here you have a person explaining the pain brought to them as a child because of superstition. Real pain. And another human, rather than accepting that superstition has in fact caused unnecessary pain, tells the victim to just get over it.
Nice.
Posted by: GH | December 29, 2006 4:13 PM
GH: Please stop insulting our intelligence by pretending there's some sort of important qualitative difference between atheist intolerance and theist intolerance. Both, as discussed here, involve the suppression of ideas deemed "wrong;" therefore both are equally hostile to freedom of speech and thought; therefore both are equally wrong, and no amount of word-games will justify one more than the other.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 29, 2006 4:14 PM
As long as we are talking about government, I agree that children should not be "defined .. by religion." I would go further, and say that governments should not define adults by their religious beliefs, or make this a matter of law or governmental policy, with innocuous exceptions such as allowing soldiers to specify what marking they want on their graves.
I have to agree with Ed that there is no way to forbid parents from indoctrinating their children, and that it is dangerous to have the government decide the line of what counts as that.
Posted by: Russell | December 29, 2006 4:15 PM
Mr Brayton,
"Absolutely not. The government simply has no legitimate authority to make any such laws, period."
So what's the US legal position if the religious views of the parent or parents act to deprive a child of medical treatment? In the UK, the courts have already acted in cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses to confirm that a minor cannot be held to the religious views of the parent and have permitted the doctors to provide medical treatment agaisnt the will of the parents.
So it would seem that courts over here have already accepted part of the petition's position and I fail to see how the other part of the petition amounts "coercion" to stamp out religion. Unless anyone is effectively stating that without access to children's minds, no-one would be religious at all, and this is clearly false given the number of people who either become religious or change religion later in life.
Please note the addressee of the petition - the Prime Minister. This is a UK thing, reflecting our society and has been set out only to make a simple political point in a country where all schools are compelled by law to include 'a daily act of worship of a broadly christian nature' for all children and the state pays for "Faith Schools" (wouldn't your religious right love that - all the control of home schooling but paid for by the state) and "City Academies" (some of which are run by YEC Evangelists without comment from Government). I am part of a society where around 15% are self-declared atheists (Census data) but while Moslems (circa 3%) are allowed their faith schools, the 'Christian Worship' law is still applied to the rest of children.
There is no way that such a law could be created or enforced but the simple exisitence of this petition has resulted in increased discussion of religion on schools and especially the special status of the UK established christian faith.
On a related note - UK laws are pretty potent when it comes to what I can and can't do to my children in public or in my home. Aside from the protections with reagrds to clear abuse, there's a load of minor controls that might result in them being taken into care including the fact that I can't strike them. Not sure how this stacks up with the US but I'll bet you consider our laws to be somewhere between 'unnecessarily intrusive' and 'dangerously totalitarian'!
Regards from the UK,
Posted by: Ross | December 29, 2006 4:15 PM
Yes, because dealing with one's pain as a responsible adult is better for all concerned than wallowing in it and blaming others for problems onee can start to resolve oneself. What alternative is there? Life goes on whether we want it to or not, so we might as well grow up and get on with it, the better to get the most out of it.
MANY people have pain from their less-than-ideal childhoods, and since the past can't be changed, the only option is to learn, forgive, and move on. I know plenty of people (mostly recovering addicts) who can confirm, from their own experience, that that's really the only viable option.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 29, 2006 4:19 PM
It seems to me you're investing a great effort in the argument that Dawkins and/or the freethinking petition may not actually mean what most reasonable people believe he/it means.
We haven't done a survey of 'most reasonable people'. I'm giving you my interpretation based on my knowledge of Dawkins, of whom I have actually read more than soundbites; the English educational system, in which I received most of my primary education and in which some of my nieces and nephews are currently enrolled; and my understanding of the culture and government of the United Kingdom, where intruding in what parents teach their kids at home would be unprecedented for the last 200 years.
melatonin, posting above, seems to be of the same opinion. Oddly enough, he/she seems also to have some direct knowledge of the system.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | December 29, 2006 4:20 PM
"Governments currently set minimum standards of education, which state what children should be required to learn. Parents who refuse to allow their kids to be taught what they are required by law to learn, can, and should, have their decisions countermanded. We don't need to outlaw the teaching of any religion to accomplish this."
How come the Amish don't have to obey such minimum educational laws? My mother let my sister drop out of school after 7th grade and nobody did squat about it. Religions are, today, still preventing many children from getting minimal education. I think outlawing religion is extreme and probably counterproductive, as seen in the Soviet Union, but we need to stop allowing parents from citing religion as an excuse for not getting a proper education for their children, not getting proper medical care for their children, and so forth. Religion gets cut WAY too much slack, and it's about time people start speaking up against that. If it takes some people with extreme views to get that notice, I'm all for it. Most Americans, including many of the people posting comments on this topic, have no idea what the fundamentalist subculture is like and how damaging it can be to children.
Posted by: writerdddd | December 29, 2006 4:20 PM
Thats BS David and you know it, belaboring a discussion on it is pointless.
Posted by: GH | December 29, 2006 4:20 PM
I hate to Post and Run, but will only be at the pc for another 30 minutes... Can an atheist play devils advocate? If so, let me suggest that people of "religious persuasion" have had it all their way since we walked out of Africa 100,000 years or so ago...
How about we at least try a control group, and establish a "religion-free zone" (or God-free Zone?)and see what happens.
I would like to start in maybe a small town, like a Crawford, TX, or maybe a more cosmopolitan site like Seattle, WA. There is some sort of self-proclaimed non-religious sciency Institute there that might be interested in financing it, since they have raised @ $4.0 million for experiments...
Everyone have a safe and happy New Year, and please consider my Religion and/or God/god Free Zone.
Posted by: J-Dog | December 29, 2006 4:25 PM
What, GH, do you believe it's impossible for atheists to indoctrinate their children against religion?
Posted by: Gretchen | December 29, 2006 4:26 PM
GH,
No, I don't know it. If it's so obvious, then just write a small comment explaining how it is manifestly true that telling a kid to believe something he doesn't believe in (God) is indoctrination while telling him to stop believing in God, if he does, isn't.
Posted by: David Heddle | December 29, 2006 4:27 PM
There isn't where did I say there was?
I have been pretty clear I'm not for suppressing anything. What are you talking about? My only comment was I fail to see how an atheist can imbue any dogma to a child. There isn't any to pass along. Big deal.
Good grief do you even have any idea how you sound? He is hurting and told us why. Of course life goes on but you wanted evidence that someone was hurt by indoctrination. This individual stepped forward and presented a personal case of his private pain and rather than accepting that fact that what your currently defending did in fact cause his pain you tell him to get over it.
Again, nice.
Posted by: GH | December 29, 2006 4:27 PM
I think you must lack imagination, then. I'm an atheist and I can certainly imagine it. Indoctrinating a child is simply attempting to inculcate in them an ideology for which no evidential support is provided, and questioning is discouraged. So an atheist could indoctrinate his/her child by telling them that theists are immoral, stupid people who are not to be trusted (just as theists, incidentally, can and often do indoctrinate their children about atheists).
Posted by: Gretchen | December 29, 2006 4:31 PM
Okay. So maybe the change needs to be longer than three words in order to indicate that the government may not participate (by funding, endorsement, etc) in the religious indocrination of children. (American government has some much simpler and easily applied rules, things along the lines of "the government may not advance or inhibhit religion or any particular religion in any way", but Britain apparently wants something more complicated.)
The point is, it's not in there. There is absolutely nothing-- not one word-- to indicate or hint at any kind of limits on this prohibition against "subjecting" children to "regular religious teaching". The wording is a pure blanket and nothing gives even the tiniest indication it applies any differently to government, parents, TV programs, people speaking in the street to passerby, whoever.
Incidentally, I am quite confused by the presence of both a Gerald Harbison and a GH in this same discussion.
Atheism by any reasonable definition has no doctrine or dogma. But Dawkins is now acting on emotion rather than reason, and so he does have dogma, and he does have doctrine, and he advances that dogma with a force and fervor that any third-rate American televangelist would be proud of. This is why ultimately, although his silly little anti-religion crusades will have no effect whatsoever on the power of the world's religions and the corruption that power has wrought, the damage Dawkins is doing to us atheists and agnostics is practically incalculable. He's building atheism into a religion.
Posted by: Coin | December 29, 2006 4:35 PM
Upon some reflection perhaps not.Maybe I'm not being clear or presenting my ideas clearly. My stance is that if you take a child and sit him in an area minus religious discussion he will never concern himself with such ideas. In essence that every child is born without religious inclination. They are essentially atheists without thinking about it. It takes something beyond this natural state to even have this discussion we are having today.
In the real world I change my mind, I guess it would be possible to make a kid hate religion, or the new York Giants. Although I'm not sure that would count as indoctrination as an atheist. I think religious indoctrination works due to the emotional component. I just don't see that angle being very revelant with the atheists I know.
And David its a rathole I just don't want to travel down.
No one can tell you not to believe in something. If you believe it you believe it. But people, as cult after cult has shown, are very easy to make believe virtually any superstitious claim. Counter cult therapists are essentially attempting to do what you are saying above and it is very difficult and sometimes impossible. The difference in terms of human pyschology is pronounced. As an amateur philosophy I may even agree with you, just not in reality.
Posted by: GH | December 29, 2006 4:38 PM
Posted by: GH | December 29, 2006 4:43 PM
Maybe I'm missing something. Isn't there a third option between "the petition must not mean what it says" and "the petition seeks 1984-style coercion with police in the churches and bedrooms"? I'm thinking something along the lines of: "The petition is meant is a precatory statement rather than something to be enforced at gunpoint."
Posted by: CThomas | December 29, 2006 4:46 PM
Okay. So maybe the change needs to be longer than three words in order to indicate that the government may not participate (by funding, endorsement, etc) in the religious indocrination of children. (American government has some much simpler and easily applied rules, things along the lines of "the government may not advance or inhibhit religion or any particular religion in any way", but Britain apparently wants something more complicated.
Oh, I agree. I'm not defending the wording of this petition, which is sloppy. I'm trying to get people to understand what it is likely to mean to the people who are signing it and to whom it is directed, and arguing that Dawkins is not an ogre because he put his name to something which, read in an American context, would mean something very different.
The way society and government works in the UK really is quite dissimilar to America. Americans tend to be surprised at that, probably because we speak the same language (sort of); we tend to forget we totally reconstructed government from the ground up, 200 years ago. Schools in the UK are run the way they are for reasons of history, not because it's a terribly intelligent way to run a school system. We, in contrast, had the luxury of being able to construct a public school system from scratch, and if we're lucky, we can hold on to it.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | December 29, 2006 4:54 PM
Ross -
Actually, trying to restrict a child from recieving medical care is a crime here too. But that is also clearly an issue of physical harm. There is a vast difference between that and what is being discussed here. This is nothing short of a push for government restrictions on religious expression.
Posted by: DuWayne | December 29, 2006 4:58 PM
I agree, Coin, it is pretty much an ambiguous petition. It's also pretty useless document and nothing will come of it (all these petitions are, Blair couldn't care less what the we plebs think).
As far as Dawkins' position, I guess he would play the "well we don't define children by political affiliation, so why do this for religious affiliation?" line of argument. He's attacking the special status it has acquired, which is fair enough but as far as restricting behaviour outside of school, quite unrealistic.
I'm pretty much against the indoctrination, but as someone mentioned above (I think), it's better to let children be exposed to the varieties of theistic belief and then reject it of their own volition, than to make it a forbidden fruit. I think multi-cultural RE lessons are sufficient for educational purposes.
Also, the indoctrination is also in non-faith schools, not as strong of course, but still present. My son's in a non-faith high school now, no hymns, still prayers at assembly amd weekly RE lessons (generally quite multicultural compared to my own school days but still a christian bias). But as I said, primary school indocrination is very pervasive in most schools across the UK, with children made to feel uncomfortable for not conforming.
Posted by: melatonin | December 29, 2006 4:59 PM
My stance is that if you take a child and sit him in an area minus religious discussion he will never concern himself with such ideas.
"An area minus religious discussion"? You mean the moon?
What about accidental exposure to religion or religious ideas through television televangelists, history books or newspaper articles discussing any of the world's religions, bibles found in hotel rooms, bookstores, libraries or dumpsters, any novel written by C.S. Lewis or Mercedes Lackey, fantasy novels in general, horror movies that imply the existence of ghosts, vampires, spirits, or demons, stealth scientologist front groups, or the kid next door who whispers that fairies are real and he saw one once really he swears?
So much as a single chance encounter with any of these would be enough to burst the bubble and touch off a process that would potentially hook them on superstition of one kind or another. You don't need "regular indocrination" or even a working understanding of a religion to become a fanatic; some of the most effective fundamentalists are the ones who understand virtually nothing about the faith they've latched onto. People truly raised in the absence of "religious discussion" might even turn out to be more susceptible to religious temptation, even, since when they inevitably run across someone trying to convert them they will be too ignorant of the religion being pitched to be aware of its flaws.
Meanwhile, whatever on earth gave you the idea that children don't invent religions? Children, even if you place them in a complete intellectual vacuum, invent private mythologies with more skill and frequency than almost any other demographic on earth.
Posted by: Coin | December 29, 2006 4:59 PM
I find this as disturbingly Orwellian and anti-freedom as anyone else, but let's call it for what it is. And what it is, is not coercion against religious belief.
Posted by: Matthew | December 29, 2006 5:00 PM
Coin -
Meanwhile, whatever on earth gave you the idea that children don't invent religions? Children, even if you place them in a complete intellectual vacuum, invent private mythologies with more skill and frequency than almost any other demographic on earth.
My son has come up with some very interesting theories about the origins of the planet earth and life on said planet. And he has through that developed a couple of "mythos," such as a four year old can. Kids are very adept at coming up with their own answers if reality is not explained - soemtimes even if it is. At least he interjects his limited understanding of evolution into his mythologies.
One remarkable thing about them (there are three), they all make absolute sense, given the absence of understanding evolution, both planetary and organic.
Great point, thanks for mentioning it.
Posted by: DuWayne | December 29, 2006 5:08 PM
GH said:
There most certainly is atheist indoctrination. In my home growing up, no reference to religious ever passed without an accompanying remark about how foolish, stupid, or equally Dawkinsesque such beliefs were. So where did my belief come from?
Most assuredly not from the Bible Belt culture that surrounded us, as I regarded that as an unwelcome intrusion into my personal life. It is still unwelcome if it is some heavy-handed conversion attempt, although I am happy to calmly discuss religious ideas ad nauseum.
It took me years to tell my family that I was Christian. I don't imagine it was anywhere near as difficult as what a gay person faces, but with the attitude taken by my sisters, it was not pleasant. And they still act condescendingly when I have to go to something at church while they are in town visiting.
So yes, parents and family can indoctrinate children into most anything. Take the poor little Prussian Blue girls. Please. And teach them how to sing while you're at it.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 29, 2006 5:14 PM
Considering the American school system where indoctrination is forbidden, but teaching children religion, is not. It's called education in comparative religion. So I suppose the word "indoctrinate" would need clarification. Can we keep our children from information like they did in The Truman Show or Village?
Posted by: daenku32 | December 29, 2006 5:24 PM