Pope on gays : "Who am I to judge?"

[Eddie Teach]

[Berkut]

Where does this idea that atheists, new or otherwise, have some agenda to "ban" religious expression or activity?

I've heard that claim made many times, and yet I've never once heard any prominent atheist make any such suggestion. Am I missing something?

I've certainly heard many atheists state that religion overall is a great negative (I would be one of them), and we would be better off without it, but that is hardly the same thing as suggesting that it actually be restricted in some legal sense. I think even the most ardent atheist, "New" or otherwise would recognize that restricting anyone's freedom of religion would be vastly more damaging than the problem itself.

[derspiess]

http://ffrf.org/

[crazy canuck]

Where does this idea that atheists, new or otherwise, have some agenda to "ban" religious expression or activity?

I've heard that claim made many times, and yet I've never once heard any prominent atheist make any such suggestion. Am I missing something?

I've certainly heard many atheists state that religion overall is a great negative (I would be one of them), and we would be better off without it, but that is hardly the same thing as suggesting that it actually be restricted in some legal sense. I think even the most ardent atheist, "New" or otherwise would recognize that restricting anyone's freedom of religion would be vastly more damaging than the problem itself.

As just one example Dawkins has taken the position that teaching children religious belief is a form of child abuse and that the practice should be banned or at least heavily regulated. 

[The Minsky Moment]

http://ffrf.org/

They clearly have an agenda to ban religious expression . . . by the state.
But not by individuals.

[derspiess]

http://ffrf.org/

They clearly have an agenda to ban religious expression . . . by the state.
But not by individuals.

That may have been their original intent, but you know-- mission creep & all.

[Berkut]

Where does this idea that atheists, new or otherwise, have some agenda to "ban" religious expression or activity?

I've heard that claim made many times, and yet I've never once heard any prominent atheist make any such suggestion. Am I missing something?

I've certainly heard many atheists state that religion overall is a great negative (I would be one of them), and we would be better off without it, but that is hardly the same thing as suggesting that it actually be restricted in some legal sense. I think even the most ardent atheist, "New" or otherwise would recognize that restricting anyone's freedom of religion would be vastly more damaging than the problem itself.

As just one example Dawkins has taken the position that teaching children religious belief is a form of child abuse and that the practice should be banned or at least heavily regulated. 

I've heard the claim that teaching religions to children is bad/immoral (and again, I would even agree with the argument), but I don't recall any suggestions for banning or regulating it in any fashion. Can you provide a source?

[Berkut]

http://ffrf.org/

Can you be more specific?

I don't think the people who represent Freedom from Religion would agree that they are trying to ban or outlaw religion.

[crazy canuck]

http://ffrf.org/

They clearly have an agenda to ban religious expression . . . by the state.
But not by individuals.

That may have been their original intent, but you know-- mission creep & all.

Was there something on that site that suggested the organization wanted to limited private speech?

[grumbler]

Where does this idea that atheists, new or otherwise, have some agenda to "ban" religious expression or activity?

I've heard that claim made many times, and yet I've never once heard any prominent atheist make any such suggestion. Am I missing something?

I've certainly heard many atheists state that religion overall is a great negative (I would be one of them), and we would be better off without it, but that is hardly the same thing as suggesting that it actually be restricted in some legal sense. I think even the most ardent atheist, "New" or otherwise would recognize that restricting anyone's freedom of religion would be vastly more damaging than the problem itself.

As just one example Dawkins has taken the position that teaching children religious belief is a form of child abuse and that the practice should be banned or at least heavily regulated.

Just as another, so has Samuel Clemens.

[The Minsky Moment]

That may have been their original intent, but you know-- mission creep & all.

Their mission is promote the constitutional principle of Church and State.  Any attempt to promote legisliation that impinged upon private religious expression would not be mission creep, it would be directly antithetical to the mission.

[The Minsky Moment]

As just one example Dawkins has taken the position that teaching children religious belief   . . . should be banned or at least heavily regulated.

Where or when did he say that?

[garbon]

As just one example Dawkins has taken the position that teaching children religious belief   . . . should be banned or at least heavily regulated.

Where or when did he say that?

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. . . . 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

So you can teach them about religions but you shouldn't teach them to hold any specific beliefs stemming from one?

[crazy canuck]

I've heard the claim that teaching religions to children is bad/immoral (and again, I would even agree with the argument), but I don't recall any suggestions for banning or regulating it in any fashion. Can you provide a source?

'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.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312813/Richard-Dawkins-Forcing-religion-children-child-abuse-claims-atheist-professor.html

I also saw some links that in 2006 Dawkins had signed a Petition in the UK calling for making it illegal to teach children under the age of 16 about religion.  I didnt link those stories because I saw other links which suggested that he removed his name from the petition at some point.


Another link I found that I think you will find very interesting is an article by another Atheist that addresses the views of what he calls the "new atheists" that has been largely taken up by Viking and Tamas in this thread.  The author's refutation of their position largely mirrors what has been said in this thread.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8839081/call-off-the-faith-wars/

[Berkut]

I can see how calling it "child abuse" could be seen as a effort to ban or regulate it, but you have to stretch to do so.

I think if you asked Dawkins straight out "Do you think laws should be passed banning the teaching of religiion to children", I rather doubt he would agree that it was a good idea in anything but a theoretical sense.