UK petition against religious upbringing
by KrauzeI just found this petition against religious upbringing:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16.
The author goes on to clarify that by "indoctrination", he really means "regular religious teaching":
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. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought.
So far, it has 859 signatures. Who said Richard Dawkins' opinons about religion are too extreme to take seriously?
Update: As my fellow Telician Mike Gene points out, Richard Dawkins is one of the signatories of this petition, which he has featured on his website. Dawkins holds the chair for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, and was chosen as one of Britain's top intellectuals by Prospect Magazine. Methinks Dawkins should spend more time telling the public about science and less time lobbying the government to outlaw religious upbringing.
December 16th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Just what we need, another demarcation problem!
Comment by macht — December 16, 2006 @ 7:20 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Well, that's a pretty serious threat. But, with only 859 signatures it's less than half as dangerous as the 2190-signatory petition urging the Primer Minister to "stand on his head and juggle ice-cream":
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/jug...
Comment by Myrmecos — December 16, 2006 @ 7:24 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Richard Dawkins name is on the petition.
Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2006 @ 8:59 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Macht wrote: Just what we need, another demarcation problem!
And how. Epistemology is grounded in Metaphysics; Metaphysics in Epistemology. You can't meaningfully define 'religion' without commiting yourself to a particular theory of knowledge; you can't commit yourself to a particular theory of knowledge without commiting yourself to a particular view of the universe.
In this case, 'religion' will be defined by the atheists, for the atheists. As far as I can tell the American establishment clause nonsense is grounded in the same.
Comment by BenK — December 16, 2006 @ 9:04 pm
December 17th, 2006 at 12:14 am
Whoa. Looks like Dawkins didn't waste any time putting his new foundation to work in the political world, attempting to force his minority fringe beliefs on all of society under color of law.
I'd toss a snarky "good luck," but it's not necessary. There's a good bit of sociopolitical groundwork skipped by this leapfrog-to-tabloid publicity stunt, and I doubt Dawkins expects anything other than publicity to come of it.
I don't think that's a bad thing. People do like circuses. For all those who have been ignoring or ignorant of these debates, it may prove a real eye-opener. Dawkins and his colleagues have been reintroducing the subject of eugenics to generations who have no memory of WW-II or the decades before it. They never knew Hitler, and are simply not taught about the awful injustices instituted by the US, Britain, Scandinavia and Northern Europe under color of law in the name of eugenics.
All the while these "New Eugenicists" deny it had/has anything to do with science, Darwinism, or the Darwin family and their inbred aristocratic supporters. Historical revisionism.
These same people now don the mantle of "New Atheists," thereby highlighting a direct connection that definitely needed highlighting. The players proudly reveal themselves to all.
You just can't make this stuff up - I'm buying stock in popcorn, then I'll settle in to enjoy the show.
Comment by Joy — December 17, 2006 @ 12:14 am
December 17th, 2006 at 12:16 am
Illegal, eh? Sound coercive to anyone?
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — December 17, 2006 @ 12:16 am
December 17th, 2006 at 12:30 am
Yep. Yet I thought he was supposed to be smart. The publicity that he and his followers will get is this - they want to make it illegal for parents to take their children to church with them. Did anyone in the ID movement ever want to make it illegal for parents to teach evolution or atheism to their children?
The next question is obvious. What does Dawkins suggest we do to parents who would not obey such a law? Does he advocate removing the children from such homes?
There is one more thing to add. Some of us have been criticizing Dawkins for years. Not about his views on evolution. But about his views on religion. Throughout this time, many ID critics have scorned, scolded, and ridiculed us. Very few ID critics have said, "Y'know, while I disagree with you on most things, you are right about Dawkins."
Comment by MikeGene — December 17, 2006 @ 12:30 am
December 17th, 2006 at 12:38 am
From what I understand (though things may have changed), this is actually the policy of the Communist government in China. Children are forbidden to attend services 'til they reach a certain age.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — December 17, 2006 @ 12:38 am
December 17th, 2006 at 1:34 am
It should give one pause when his own ideas coincide with policies of a government known for its repression of freedom. BTW, I liked the Thermopylae post at your blog. It was a great historic event in many ways.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2006 @ 1:34 am
December 17th, 2006 at 1:46 am
Cool name/blog Wonders.
Comment by Guts — December 17, 2006 @ 1:46 am
December 17th, 2006 at 1:48 am
The movie comes out next year. Check out the trailer.
Comment by MikeGene — December 17, 2006 @ 1:48 am
December 17th, 2006 at 1:53 am
Ahh that looks really good.
Comment by Guts — December 17, 2006 @ 1:53 am
December 17th, 2006 at 2:17 am
Historically accurate? Not so much. Cool? Hell yes!
Come to think of it, arrogant presumptuous coercion has been known to have side effects on honorable people. Like the Spartans in 480, or the Americans in 1776…
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — December 17, 2006 @ 2:17 am
December 17th, 2006 at 2:35 am
By the way, with a little research one could write up a pretty juicy news piece. I can see the headline - "Richard Dawkins lobbies for Communist-style religious persecution in England." You could have interviews with Asian Christian parents talking about their frustrations with the atheist indoctrination their children receive at school (teachers regularly pulling out "can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it" to mock religious kids in front of their friends) while they are forced to leave their kids outside to play when they walk into church. Juxtapose this with a few pertinent Dawkins quotes.
I suppose this sorta thing is rather low, but the guy practically begs for it…
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — December 17, 2006 @ 2:35 am
December 17th, 2006 at 2:44 am
Dawkinites actually might find these fitting responses to the religious threat.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2006 @ 2:44 am
December 17th, 2006 at 5:56 am
Inspiring a graphic novel that is made into a major motion picture? Priceless.
Comment by Guts — December 17, 2006 @ 5:56 am