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

[The Brain]

Or maybe making "no one has/will ever..." statements is ill-advised.

[Berkut]

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?

What do you mean by "can"?

Obviously an atheist is not going to think it is a good idea to teach children to believe in something that doesn't exist in the fashion of religion.

But there is a huge gulf between that and arguing that people ought to be restricted from doing so as a matter of law. I think all atheists would agree that teaching children to believe in god on faith is a generally bad idea, I think very, very few of them would argue that throwing out freedom of religion is the way to go about stopping it.

[Berkut]

Or maybe making "no one has/will ever..." statements is ill-advised.

Who did 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?

What do you mean by "can"?

Obviously an atheist is not going to think it is a good idea to teach children to believe in something that doesn't exist in the fashion of religion.

But there is a huge gulf between that and arguing that people ought to be restricted from doing so as a matter of law. I think all atheists would agree that teaching children to believe in god on faith is a generally bad idea, I think very, very few of them would argue that throwing out freedom of religion is the way to go about stopping it.

Can as in not criminal to teach about religions. Seems like he would be for criminalizing telling kids they are Christian or Muslim, unless he's equating it with child abuse to say that the latter shouldn't be criminalized.

[The Brain]

Or maybe making "no one has/will ever..." statements is ill-advised.

Who did that?

Funny you should respond to this. If the glove fits...

[Berkut]

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?

What do you mean by "can"?

Obviously an atheist is not going to think it is a good idea to teach children to believe in something that doesn't exist in the fashion of religion.

But there is a huge gulf between that and arguing that people ought to be restricted from doing so as a matter of law. I think all atheists would agree that teaching children to believe in god on faith is a generally bad idea, I think very, very few of them would argue that throwing out freedom of religion is the way to go about stopping it.

Can as in not criminal to teach about religions. Seems like he would be for criminalizing telling kids they are Christian or Muslim, unless he's equating it with child abuse to say that the latter shouldn't be criminalized.

I don't know what he means, but I am relatively certain that equating with child abuse is not an attempt to argue that the legal penalty for doing so ought to be the same, but rather that it should be seen by rational people as being equivalent, and something that should not be done.

It is easy to check - if he feels as you claim, then we should see him making the following up and obvious proposal that in fact we should pass laws making it illegal. Are there any such follow up proposals from him?

This is like someone saying that feeding your kid McDonalds every day is like child abuse. They are making a moral claim, not a legal one, and they are not claiming it should be illegal to feed you kid at McDonalds, even if they are saying doing so all the time is abusive.

[garbon]

I think he just did it for shock value to be honest.

[Berkut]

Or maybe making "no one has/will ever..." statements is ill-advised.

Who did that?

Funny you should respond to this. If the glove fits...

I have no idea what you mean, honestly. Are you saying that I said something along the lines of "no one has/ever will..."?

Because I am quite certain I have not.

[The Brain]

Or maybe making "no one has/will ever..." statements is ill-advised.

Who did that?

Funny you should respond to this. If the glove fits...

I have no idea what you mean, honestly. Are you saying that I said something along the lines of "no one has/ever will..."?

Because I am quite certain I have not.

Whoa, dial back the rage.

[Berkut]

I think he just did it for shock value to be honest.

Yeah, you are probably right - he went for something incendiary enough to get repeated.

Again, I agree with he basic sentiment, but there are of course all kinds of ways to state it with varying degrees of "shock value" associated with it.

And you can say that exact same thing in very mild terms as well.

[Berkut]

Or maybe making "no one has/will ever..." statements is ill-advised.

Who did that?

Funny you should respond to this. If the glove fits...

I have no idea what you mean, honestly. Are you saying that I said something along the lines of "no one has/ever will..."?

Because I am quite certain I have not.

Whoa, dial back the rage.

OK, dialed back. Rage set to -11.

[The Brain]

Or maybe making "no one has/will ever..." statements is ill-advised.

Who did that?

Funny you should respond to this. If the glove fits...

I have no idea what you mean, honestly. Are you saying that I said something along the lines of "no one has/ever will..."?

Because I am quite certain I have not.

Whoa, dial back the rage.

OK, dialed back. Rage set to -11.

You're a mellow man.

[crazy canuck]

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.

I think we know the answer to that question when he signed a Petition calling for such a thing but then thought better of it and asked for his name to be removed from the Petition.  I had half remembered the act of signing the Petition but I did not know he had then asked for his name to be removed.

[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.

I think we know the answer to that question when he signed a Petition calling for such a thing but then thought better of it and asked for his name to be removed from the Petition.

Indeed. I could easily see myself doing the same - it is the kind of idea that is sound in theory, but if you take it to the practical implementation, it is clearly impossible in any kind of liberal society.

I could see myself siging a petition that says "Nicotine kills! Ban smoking!" and then thinking "Hmmm, yeah, that doesn't really work..." and retracting the signature.

I think teaching your children to believe in god at a young age is a pretty terrible thing to do to them. But I think restricting people right to teach their children as they see fit is worse. I would bet that Dawkins position is much the same.

I had half remembered the act of signing the Petition but I did not know he had then asked for his name to be removed.

This is actually the first I've ever heard of anything remotely like this. I've certainly heard the basic argument that indoctrinating/brainwashing/teaching/whatever kids into faith prior to their ability to think through the reasoning on their own is a immoral thing to do, but the follow on "...and hence it should be against the law" I've only ever heard from people telling me what atheists think, rather than actual prominent atheists.

[Berkut]

Of course, since this is all about whether or not Tamas and Viking are just like this largely fictional atheists, why don't we just ask them?

Tamas/Viking, do either of you believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach their children religious beliefs as truths?