Values and Policies

Moderate - I followed that link and didn't find the petition you mentioned -- it was 1-50 of thousands. Why not give a specific reference when you're trying to prove something with facts?

I did Google the exact phrase and found a list of signatories including one “Dr ‘I am God’ Dawkins.” http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/freethinking/?showall=1

I doubt Richard Dawkins, an esteemed Oxford professor, would be so casual on a government petition.

However, even if he had signed it , the language “indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16." is in keeping with his attitude – against indoctrination and labeling.

As for the WSJ article, 1) you provide no link, so I can’t immediately tell if it’s legitimate. I did Google and find that it’s an opinion piece. Why not provide the links? http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110009482

2) Considering it’s the author’s opinion and not straight reporting, he easily could have shaded the Dawkins’ quote.

3) even so, he refers to “training” not education, as I mentioned earlier – they are different.

Dawkins is for teaching children about religions (note the plural). He is against training children that they must believe in one religion.

Hope this helps.

Dear E Favorite:

You have disputed no point of fact that I have presented, but cling to a refuted argument.

To review the language of the petition:

""We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16."

But lets stick to the facts.

What did you think of the petition Dawkins reportedly signed? Is the Government of the UK in error on its report of the signatories thereto? Are the reports of his signing this authoritarian petition and then repudiating himself inaccurate?

Did the Wall Street Journal lie about what he said?

It is always possible that what I have read is in error. Have you any evidence to present to that effect? Unlike you, I am always open to new evidence and am ready to hear new facts. But in the absence of further contrary factual evidence it is you who choose a dreamworld insulated from the facts.

Dear E Favorite:

You have disputed no point of fact that I have presented, but cling to a refuted argument.

To review the language of the petition:

""We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16."

But lets stick to the facts.

What did you think of the petition Dawkins reportedly signed? Is the Government of the UK in error on its report of the signatories thereto? Are the reports of his signing this authoritarian petition and then repudiating himself inaccurate?

Did the Wall Street Journal lie about what he said?

It is always possible that what I have read is in error. Have you any evidence to present to that effect? Unlike you, I am always open to new evidence and am ready to hear new facts. But in the absence of further contrary factual evidence it is you who choose a dreamworld insulated from the facts.

Moderate: "It seems clear that Dawkins is an erratic extremist"

In your dreams, and nothing in your post indicates otherwise, or perhaps you don't know the difference between religious "training" and religious "education."

By the way, Dawkins' book was on the best seller list for a year and the new paperback edition is also on the best sellers list.

Don't worry, though, the Bible's been on the best seller list much longer than that. People buy it, but not so many actually sit down and read it.

Dear E Favorite:

"Moderate, Dawkins does NOT suggest that "teaching our children religion is 'child abuse'.""

While that is technically correct as of the present moment, it is a very careful parse, because he HAS suggested it many times in the past. Only recently has he taken the position you describe. Perhaps because books sales are down.

Fact: Dawkins signed a petition with the following language:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16."

Which is listed in http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/

He later withdrew his signature from this extremist petition and is now backpedaling from his radical position.

Fact: Dawkins has called religious education of children child abuse on multiple occasions. One of many examples including the following was reported in the Wall Street Journal:

Without God, Gall Is Permitted, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, By Sam Schulman, January 5, 2007 "... For them, belief in God is beyond childish, it is unsuitable for children. Today's atheists are particularly disgusted by the religious training of young people -- which Dr. Dawkins calls "a form of child abuse." He even floats the idea that the state should intervene to protect children from their parents' religious beliefs. ..."

It seems clear that Dawkins is an erratic extremist.

Moderate, Dawkins does NOT suggest that "teaching our children religion is 'child abuse'."

He says that LABELING children as members of a religion is abusive (just as labeling them as members of a political party would be - children are not mature enough to make those kinds of decisions.)

He is not against teaching children about religion, in fact he is in favor of children knowing about various religions. He is opposed to INDOCTRINATING children into religion - that is teaching them that they must believe one set of dogma and supernatural beliefs and that all the other beliefs are wrong.

Dear Gaby,

"I have strong feelings about the general American public who seem to be obsessed with public figures' beliefs. In my opinion that boils down to a religious test and as such is unconstitutional."

It is unconstitutional to establish a state religion. It is unconstitutional to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

It is not unconstitutional for a voter to consider his or her personal beliefs, including religious ones, in selecting a candidate. Relax. You, too, can consider your own beliefs when choosing a candidate.

Dear Norrie:

""To many religious conservatives, secularism means banning religion from the public square."

Religious conservatives are mistaken if they believe that."

You, personally, may be more reasonable. But Fr. Reese is correct in recognizing that conservatives see an element in the extreme Atheist wing that wants to ban religion from the pubic square. For example, Dawkins suggests that teaching our children religion is "child abuse".

What I am saying Viejita is that the least number of religious viewpoints you can have in the Public square is one. If you are going to kick out every religion then you will de facto have established atheism as the only official publicly accepted view point whether you like it or not. I want them all there the Atheists, the Christians, the Jews, the Hindus, the Buddhist, the Shintoists, the Pagans, and even the Moslems. I am only interested in excluding you to the extent you would exclude anyone else.

Father Reese: "For example, to believe that all persons are children of God means that we are all brothers and sisters."

Nice for you, but for many Christians, "Children of God" is a clannish concept meaning being kinship exclusively with people in your narrow denomination who adhere to a specific set of supernatural beliefs that are unrelated to helping other people here on earth.

Please use your influence to try to change that.

Thanks

Gary are you saying that anyone is pushing official atheism in the public square? I just don't see it. What I see is, where the rule is working properly the religious preference space is left officially blank. As in tabula rasa, as in not filled in by the government. So individuals are free to fill in their own preferences; what they can't do is fill in the blank for anyone else.

Pagan the only one trying to kick anyone out of the public square are the atheists. All most Christians want is equal access to the political arena.

I dunno, Norrie, the people who defame secularism and secularists as a rival religion to Christianity usually cite things like permit hassles (that prevent everyone who goes to a national park to be in the wild from ending up in a park-destroying crowd of RVs, (yes, the permits do something, in a lot of places, and they also pay for the people who protect it and you to some extent)

...but what they *really* want to deregulate is the big stuff, like legislation that prevents corporate abuse of people and the public airwaves and the environment...

People who say secularism is about government intrusion into one's lives *like* to make sure that people are put out by things like gun control regulations, so they can continue to run as against 'big government.'

The funny thing is they aren't afraid to try to regulate people's sex lives or force religions into public schools or any other such issues of truly *personal* freedom. Not so for state's rights when it comes to trying to impose their religious tabooes, or when a state wants to control how much pollution it experiences, or even wants voting machines it can trust.

It's often the same people who want to claim that 'secularism' is a rival religion of 'Big Government' who are the first to try and use zoning laws and whatnot to stop Pagans from celebrating on our own land, and such, so there's hardly any consistency there.

In fact, they very commonly try to impose their religion on schools and public property while, of course, using those same regulations to try and keep all expression of other points of view *out.*

Which, I might add, is a major reason why our government is supposed to be religiously-neutral in the first place, ...to prevent it from degenerating into such squabbles.

Now, not all regulations are well-made or sensible, but the mere presence of some doesn't have to be a bad thing... Over the years of this 'anti-big government' regime, the only people that have really experienced deregulation are big companies who pollute and exploit and are less-accountable through the courts... while they hold up inconvenient regulations and permits as an example of why we should clamor for more of the same.

It's not hard for me to see a direct parallel between how Christian conservatives treat 'secularists' and how they treat 'liberals' and people of other religions. ie, everyone but them:

They aren't against big government, they want to *be* big government.

Ryan,

Thanks for your post. I agree with a lot that you wrote too, kinda.

I'm a liberal Democrat, but I was sometimes delighted at some of the Rehnquist Court's attempts to cut back the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause that had allowed the Congress to legislate on local town and government matters.

An example:

I live in Vermont. Vermont has the most liberal gun laws in the country. No permit is required to carry a concealed weapon just about anywhere - even into our Legislature (though a legislative rule allows the Sergeant at Arms to escort the carrier outside - but having brought the gun into the legislature does not violate the law).

Our former somewhat liberal Governor, Howard Dean, M.D. (You've heard of him?) received the highest rating of the National Rifle Association for his agreement with their views.

Then, in 1990, the Congress passed a law which applied to every square inch of the United States, which said that no firearm could be brought within 1,000 feet (333) yards of a school. Many Vermonters hunt within that distance, particularly on weekends.

The Supreme Court held in 1995 that the law was unconstitutional because interstate commerce was not involved, and the Congress had no jurisdiction to legislate on such a matter outside of interstate commerce. It was the first time in fifty years that the Court had voided a Congressional act on those grounds.

I applauded that decision. The Court seems to have retreated somewhat since then, which may be a good thing, because that Conservative court has also struck down what I see as good legislation affecting localities.

Best wishes.

Norrie

Fr. Reese,

Again, I appreciate your thoughtful article. I agree fully that a candidate's philosophy is very important because it will predict his actions. In my mind, his philosophy is important to voters ONLY in as much as it will allow us to predict his actions and know what we are voting for. The thing is that many (most?) candidates' undergirding beliefs aren't what they publicly profess, or even what they believe themselves to believe. Deep down inside, I suspect that most candidates' belief is this: "Getting elected is the most important thing; while it is possible, I must do what it takes." With such an undergirding belief, whether they outwardly profess Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or whatever, matters little - all those beliefs are undermined by the desire to win.

Norrie,

I agree with everything you wrote, kinda. The government isn't required to exclude religion from its purview. The US Constitution's 1st Amendment only requires it neither (1) to interfere with a religion; (2) to establish one over and against the others.

Another problem introduced in recent times is the expansion of the government's sense of its own prerogatives. There was a time in America where the government was truly limited. That time is long past. It is pretty obvious to pretty much everyone that some level of government, local, state, or federal, feels itself entitled to interfere with or govern pretty much every aspect of daily life. Whether the affair is strictly private, or very public, some layer of government is regulating it, you can almost be certain. I am no libertarian, but the sheer number of regulations about almost anything (planting a tree in one's own yard, renting a room in one's own house, asking for charity from one's own neighbors, taking care of one's family members, fishing in a stream through one's own land, driving a tractor on one's own property, etc.) is enough to make one reel.

Moreover, all that is Public is now claimed to be the special jurisdiction of the government. Witness the need for permits to camp in public (theoretically, the property of all in common) forest lands. So if there is a public park, but the public cannot use it without government permission, is it really publicly, or governmentally owned? And if the government claims such vast prerogatives, and is to abstain from religion (which I think it is wise for the government to do) doesn't that really effectively exclude religion from vast areas of public life?

Yours,
Ryan

"To many religious conservatives, secularism means banning religion from the public square."

Religious conservatives are mistaken if they believe that.

Thoughtful secularists understand that the PUBLIC square is open to all and to all points of view.

It is the GOVERNMENTAL square from which religion is banned, both by the Constitution and by an informed understanding of past religious wars and of the dangers of letting them begin again.

Thank you, Father Reese, for your impressive essay.

As a non-religionist, yet believer of sorts, I have strong feelings about the general American public who seem to be obsessed with public figures' beliefs. In my opinion that boils down to a religious test and as such is unconstitutional.

I wish polititians would have the forthrightness to publically say exactly that when asked about their personal faith. If they all stood firm, maybe Americans would get the drift.