Dawkins: Don’t Force Your Religious Opinions on Your Children

[trotsky]

http://time.com/3711945/children-religion-parents-school-policy/

Last week the local government council of the London borough of Islington was reported in the Islington Gazette as having banned pork products from primary school dinners. The rumor of an outright ban has since been denied, and the truth is unclear. A good case could indeed be made for a ban, on humanitarian grounds. There is persuasive evidence, after all, that pigs have levels of intelligence and awareness comparable to our much loved domestic pets. But no such humane considerations have been mentioned here. Councillor Joe Caluori, the Council’s executive member for children and families, was quoted in the Gazette as saying: “By not having pork on the menus in our schools, we can keep down costs and reduce food waste, maximising the schools meal budget in tough financial circumstances.”

The underlying point was clarified by another spokesman from the council, as quoted in the Gazette and requoted in The Independent, one of Britain’s most respected national newspapers: “Young children, some as young as four-years-old, of different religious and ethnic backgrounds may not know which foods contain pork, or may not realise the importance of avoiding it due to their culture or beliefs.”

Whatever the truth or falsehood of the original report of the ban itself, there is something in that quotation that should leap out and hit you in the face. “Their” beliefs? The “beliefs” of four-year-old children? Did it not occur to this spokesperson that children who are too young to realize the importance of “their” beliefs might also be too young to possess those same beliefs in the first place? How can the “beliefs” of a four-year-old child be “important” to her if she doesn’t even know what her beliefs are?

Would you ever speak of a four-year-old’s political beliefs? Hannah is a socialist four-year-old, Mark a conservative. Who would ever dream of saying such a thing? What would you say if you read a demographic article which said something like this: “One in every three children born today is a Kantian Neo-platonist child. If the birth rate trends continue, Existentialist Positivists will be outnumbered by 2030.” Never mind the nonsensical names of philosophical schools of thought I just invented. I deliberately chose surreal names so as not to distract from the real point. Religion is the one exception we all make to the rule: don’t label children with the opinions of their parents.

[edhopper]

1. Always thought

this was an excellent point that Dawkins made.

[skepticscott]

3. Yes, it is...not sure why there are prominent posters on other boards

who go ballistic every time they read something like this. It's not as if they have a rational answer to it...they just can't abide Dawkins being right and their family agenda being torpedoed.

[edhopper]

10. Because Dawkins!!!

[Fumesucker]

2. What about the Pastafarian children?

Should we ban pasta from school lunches because Pastafarian children may be inadvertently engaging in theophagy?

[Rainforestgoddess]

4. But is it wrong to point out how silly it all is to your kids?

Of course, not at age four. They're still trying to figure out which end is up then.

I never told my kids "you are atheist" but they all self identify as such now. (youngest is 13)

Funny story, they saw a picture of the Pope in full regalia, and thought he'd make a good time lord because of the funny hat and duds.

[trotsky]

5. Same here, I never pushed a label on my kids at all.

As they encountered religious ideas, I'd explain them as "Well, some people believe X..." and give a little historical background on it. They're teens now and both consider themselves to be an atheist.

[Rainforestgoddess]

7. Some people believe x

Leads to, 'what do you believe, mommy?' which I would answer truthfully.

[trotsky]

9. Yup! Did exactly that.

And contrary to what some shameless individuals here on DU promote about me, I never said a negative word about a believer.

[AlbertCat]

8. The Pope's Getup....

....and cardinals and so on....


It is interesting how these "uniforms" came about.

Basically they are slightly altered Ancient Roman and early Gothic clothing. Clothes back then...and really up until the 19th century... were VERY regulated as in what someone in some social class could wear. Colors and patterns on the cloth, as well as the amount of yardage and how one wore their toga or stola told everyone else who and what you were.... and you'd better not wear something that didn't go with your position. There was no "do your own thing/ create your own style" clothes-wise.

[onager]

6. Socialist? Conservative?

Oh hell no. My mother wrangles 4 and 5 year olds at a day care center. They're a bunch of natural anarchists.

I'd say this article (again) disproves the "dour and humorless" canard about Dawkins.

"One in every three children born today is a Kantian Neo-platonist..."