Skip to comments.Forcing a religion on your children is as bad as child abuse, says atheist professor Richard Dawkins
Posted on 04/22/2013 4:38:51 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as 'child abuse'.
In typically incendiary style, the leading atheist said he was against the 'indoctrination of religion' and teaching it as fact.
The evolutionary scientist and Emeritus Fellow at Oxford University, speaking at the Chipping Norton Literary Festival yesterday, was repeating claims he made last year which were roundly condemned by charities and politicians.
Professor Dawkins said at the festival that children should be taught religion but scorn should be poured on its claims.
'What a child should be taught is that religion exists; that some people believe this and some people believe that,' the Daily Telegraph reported he had said.
'What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child, therefore that is what you believe. That's child abuse.'
He added that teaching children religion would help them understand literature.
Professor Dawkins, a biologist who revolutionised the theory of evolution with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, added that he thought it was still important to teach children about different faiths.
Religion critic: Prof Dawkins' bestseller The God Delusion
'There is a value in teaching children about religion. You cannot really appreciate a lot of literature without knowing about religion. But we must not indoctrinate our children,' he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
So, by his brilliant figurin’, pushing a fist into his face would be professorial abuse.
Forcing Liberalizm on your children is Child Abuse.
Except if the religion coincides with the goals of every liberal, a religion such as islam.
Having king hussein on the throne is child abuse.
You can teach your own children anything you want, but leave our children alone.
Those who have not received the gift of faith from the Holy Spirit can no more understand it than a pig understands calculus. It is pointless to argue with them.
Oh God, atheist Richard Dawkins says when stumped in debate with Church of England priest
perhaps there is one obvious giant-sized world religion for which this is a correct analysis
RE: Oh God, atheist Richard Dawkins says when stumped in debate with Church of England priest
Why not ‘oh Charles’?
yeah stop picking on the king
RE: perhaps there is one obvious giant-sized world religion for which this is a correct analysis
He can’t name it openly, he still values his head even at age 72...
I'm not interested after reading Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back.
I meant his namesake king berry hussein o’bama the black irish
monarch of the confused states of America.
Hey now. No piling on. I might “feel” bullied then there will be real problems. LOL! Celebrate erf day. Burn some compacted dino’s.
Sure Dawkins, go tell it to the muslims firsthand in person.
I’ll await their debate response to you.
Eventually, these intolerant evangelical atheists will force us to submit or kill them. Is there no way to put them on an island with Muslims?
Dear Prof Dawkins,
Mind your own effing business.
maybe his non-god will take him to collect his reward soon (72 virgins?)
The basis of right and wrong is religion.
No matter what this a-hole says, religion is what is the basis for Civilised society.
All laws that count are written with a basis from the Bible.
Without religion there is no right or wrong,only what a-holes like this preach.
Parents can’t help but teach their children. Even not teaching something is teaching something.
So teaching is inescapable.
The next question is, if parents are not the primary educators of their children, who is? There is no rational alternative.
And raising your children in the religion of atheism ammounts to ETERNAL abuse....
If it’s Islam, I’d have to agree.
He is no man of consequence.
He has written nothing of consequence.
I f*rt in his general direction.
Wouldn’t you just like to bust that grinning gargoyle?
The most annoying thing about atheists is their gawd awful arrogance. Shows, doesn’t it?
So teaching a child not to crap in his pants is now child abuse. Using his logic, we’d all end up like him. What a tenured fool.
So why does demand we all follow his beliefs of Atheism?
Ironic. He claims to find his own way, yet, he is a conformist by wearing that jacket and tie.
Sunday as a non work day (or saturday) is there for religious reasons.
Why do atheists take sunday off? if they were serious they would work seven days a week.
Lemme get this straight, perfesser, you just said that we must not indoctrinate children, right? Isn't exactly *THAT* part and parcel of what you're being paid by certain other parties to do? Indoctrinate other people's children into *your* chosen faith?
Maybe we should begin by examining the relative merits of the faith of secular humanism. No? Out of bounds to you? There's a word for that sirrah, the word is 'hypocrisy'...
He does indeed name Islam (along with some other religions). Read the article.
That’s him? Who is the guy in a wheelchair who speaks the same rant as this one? I thought his name was Dawkins.
And some of the arrogant ones can be petulant little tyrants. Good display was last Wednesday evening. Lucky for me I didn’t see the king tossing his 3yr olds tantrum.
I will teach my children about God and His Word.
Not "that some people believe this and some people believe that" but that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" through "For God so loved the world . . ." and the rest of scripture along with what it means.
I would not permit a child to form independent judgements on how a firearm should be handled safely, and these are far bigger and more important questions. It is my responsibility as a parent to raise my child, to provide guidance and where possible the truth, and almost as important to protect my children from people like Dawkins and those who believe in his moral relativism. It does not take a village to raise a child, it takes a parent's love and commitment to raise an adult who will not depend on the village for lifetime support but who will follow God's Word and do good rather than evil.
perhaps you mean Hawking?
Similar sounding names.
tell it to the muslim world, Richard
see how impressed they are with your brilliance
The problem is there are men in government who believe as he does, and they have the power to impose his views on children who attend “their “schools.
Thank you. You are right, I just checked and that’s him.
In other words, then, "forcing a religion" is like child abuse, but "mild" pedophilia is not. (Of course, I'm assuming that the Dawkins universe is relatively stable in its views and self-consistent in its statements. I acknowledge that my assumptions of stability and self-consistency may be a little unwarranted.)
If a Pat Robertson (of whom I am not a fan) had said two things like that, the MSM total outrage would've been deafening.
RE: In other words, then, “forcing a religion” is like child abuse, but “mild” pedophilia is not.
The more important philosophical question is this: If we assume Dawkin’s belief to be true, how is child abuse truly evil? By what standard does he determine what is “good” and what is “bad” if we are all ultimately just products of the random collision of atoms?
This guy thinks pedophilia is okay but not taking a kid to church.
Why does anyone take this man seriously?
RE: This guy thinks pedophilia is okay but not taking a kid to church.
To be really consistent, the best Dawkins can say is ultimately, we can’t really say if there is a difference between being a Mother Theresa or Osama Bin Ladin. After all, they are both just products of chance collision of atoms.
To quote Hillary, in the long run — What difference does it make?
Bin Ladin, Mother Theresa, they’re both now cosmic dust.
Yes, I too have thought of the question, which in a way is the background to my earlier points.
If the materialist atheists are correct about certain things, then they should question the existence of Good--and the existence of Evil, Morality, Ethics, and what-have-you.
Is there any scientific proof that those truly exist outside our minds? I myself have never heard of any scientific evidence that the products of the random collision of particles should learn more about logic than about the Kardashians, should generally prefer nonviolence to violence, or should prefer non-pedophilia to pedophilia, however "mild" it is alleged to be. In fact, there'd be no consistent reason to be outraged over religious wars or even to be an atheist.
Then again, if they are correct about those certain things, then there really exists no reason that they should even live up to their self-professed standards, anyway.
In other words, this "more important philosophical question" is one of the main reasons that I've never been able to take conventional missionary atheism very seriously. If its fundamental professions about the nature of reality are truly correct, then its frequent ethical allusions are inherently self-contradictory and basically pointless.