The atheist indoctrination project

[Voegelin]

Townhall
by Dinesh D'Souza

It seems atheists have developed a comprehensive strategy to win the minds of the next generation. The strategy can be described simply: let the religious people breed them, and we will educate them to despise their parents’ beliefs . . .

Of course, parents—especially Christian parents—might want to say something about all this. That’s why the atheist educators are now raising the question of whether parents should have control over what their children learn. Dawkins asks, “How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents? It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? . . . "

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/..._project&ns=DineshDSouza&dt=10/22/2007&page=2

 

[quatona]

 

[Patashu]

But it's A-OK when children are raised to be religious/despise atheists, right?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I used to respect Dinesh D'Souza, but now he's trying to turn this issue into atheists versus Christians? It never was.



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[selfinflikted]

Well, it's like Dawkin's says - there's no such thing as a "christian child" or a "muslim child". There are, in fact, "children of christian parents" and "children of muslim parents". Children, at the age I suspect this OP is targeting, really do not have their own opinion on what they "believe" as they are too young. It is far more likely that children raised by christian parents will in turn become and remain christians later in life. Conversely, children raised by muslim parent will more likely than not become and remain muslims later in life. This, of course, is due to indoctrination.

The bottom line is, science is now able to explain much of what was once thought "unexplainable". Before, god was used to fill the gaps. Now, science is filling those gaps and the more gaps science fills, the smaller and smaller role god will play as an explanation for our lack of understanding. It is the natural evolution of understanding (all puns intended). I do not see this as a "bad" thing, because I would personally see the pursuit of truth triumph over complacency in ignorance.

 

[Lynden1000]

Atheists only make up about 5% of the US population. If we've managed to stomp all over Christians (who make up about 85% of the population) despite their clear majority, well, then, I think we deserve to be in control. We're clearly the dominant animal.

 

[selfinflikted]

Atheists only make up about 5% of the US population. If we've managed to stomp all over Christians (who make up about 85% of the population) despite their clear majority, well, then, I think we deserve to be in control. We're clearly the dominant animal.

hehe. I would posit that there are in reality far more atheists in the US population than most polls indicate. It's congruent to a homosexual's "coming out". I think that most atheists probably prefer to "stay in the closet" for obvious reasons.

 

[bunced]

Townhall
by Dinesh D'Souza

It seems atheists have developed a comprehensive strategy to win the minds of the next generation. The strategy can be described simply: let the religious people breed them, and we will educate them to despise their parents’ beliefs . . .

Of course, parents—especially Christian parents—might want to say something about all this. That’s why the atheist educators are now raising the question of whether parents should have control over what their children learn. Dawkins asks, “How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents? It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? . . . "

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/..._project&ns=DineshDSouza&dt=10/22/2007&page=2

You know, I have gone through 12 years, nearly 13, of secular, state education. Now granted, in that time, I was in the UK, not the US, but I should imaging the principle is pretty much the same.

Over the 12 years, I have learnt about Christianity. I have learnt about Islam and Sikhism and Buddhism and Judaism and other beliefs too. I have learnt about the Theory of Evolution, I have learnt about the Big Bang, I have learnt about Creationism (in an religious studies class, not in a science class, because it is not a science). I have learnt the arguments for abstention and the arguments for having protected sex. All through that, never did I have anyone getting me to despise the beliefs of my parents. But I was encouraged to think critically, to challenge my preconceptions - and those of others. To be willing to argue a case - not agressively, as I see many people doing, but based on logic, reason and a respect for whoever I am arguing against

Now surely, if Christianity had anything going for it, people would choose it despite the fact they get taught opposing views. I know I am still a committed Christian despite being exposed to all different views. And you know what, I am grateful for growing up in an environment where my preconceptions were challenged, where I had to learn to get along with people of other faiths, where I had to acknowledge that just because someone doesn't agree with me, it doesn't make them a bad person.

The role of education should be to open the mind, to present children with different opinions and to then encourage them to make their free choice out of their own volition. That is why I believe in democracy, in a free society - because not everyone has to agree with your religion to get on. That is also why I am very against faith schools (of any faith, be they Jewish, Christian, Muslim or whatever). If the education system is to be there simply to indoctrinate people into a world view, then it has failed. Education is teaching people to question, to seek beyond the known, to think critically.

As Dawkins said (or to paraphrase), a child is no more a Christian than he is a member of the Post Office General Workers' Union. It is a personal decision to follow a faith, not one of which religion they were born into, and I think they should be presented with all the facts and then allowed to make their own choices.

Surely Christianity can stand up to scrutiny along side every other opinion? Surely it is robust enough? So where is the problem?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheists only make up about 5% of the US population. If we've managed to stomp all over Christians (who make up about 85% of the population) despite their clear majority, well, then, I think we deserve to be in control. We're clearly the dominant animal.

Rawr!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[levi501]

Townhall
by Dinesh D'Souza

It seems atheists have developed a comprehensive strategy to win the minds of the next generation. The strategy can be described simply: let the religious people breed them, and we will educate them to despise their parents’ beliefs . . .

Yep, rationalism is religion's worst enemy. Give a kid even a remote taste of that plus some formalized logic and fundimentalism is dead.

 

[I Just Believe In Me]

You know, I have gone through 12 years, nearly 13, of secular, state education. Now granted, in that time, I was in the UK, not the US, but I should imaging the principle is pretty much the same.

Over the 12 years, I have learnt about Christianity. I have learnt about Islam and Sikhism and Buddhism and Judaism and other beliefs too. I have learnt about the Theory of Evolution, I have learnt about the Big Bang, I have learnt about Creationism (in an religious studies class, not in a science class, because it is not a science). I have learnt the arguments for abstention and the arguments for having protected sex. All through that, never did I have anyone getting me to despise the beliefs of my parents. But I was encouraged to think critically, to challenge my preconceptions - and those of others. To be willing to argue a case - not agressively, as I see many people doing, but based on logic, reason and a respect for whoever I am arguing against

Now surely, if Christianity had anything going for it, people would choose it despite the fact they get taught opposing views. I know I am still a committed Christian despite being exposed to all different views. And you know what, I am grateful for growing up in an environment where my preconceptions were challenged, where I had to learn to get along with people of other faiths, where I had to acknowledge that just because someone doesn't agree with me, it doesn't make them a bad person.

The role of education should be to open the mind, to present children with different opinions and to then encourage them to make their free choice out of their own volition. That is why I believe in democracy, in a free society - because not everyone has to agree with your religion to get on. That is also why I am very against faith schools (of any faith, be they Jewish, Christian, Muslim or whatever). If the education system is to be there simply to indoctrinate people into a world view, then it has failed. Education is teaching people to question, to seek beyond the known, to think critically.

As Dawkins said (or to paraphrase), a child is no more a Christian than he is a member of the Post Office General Workers' Union. It is a personal decision to follow a faith, not one of which religion they were born into, and I think they should be presented with all the facts and then allowed to make their own choices.

Surely Christianity can stand up to scrutiny along side every other opinion? Surely it is robust enough? So where is the problem?

I second. If you really believe that what you think is truth, than you should have no problem with it being challenged.

 

[Phred]

snip

What's wrong, you afraid of the truth?

 

[Beanieboy]

Christians once believed that it was the sperm that was a tiny baby (thus, a sin to spill the seed). Mary was a virgin, so Jesus was all God, and all pure, having no real human ties.

Then it was discovered that the woman's egg is fertilized. Now Jesus was 1/2 human, so miraculously, the was an Emaculate Conception, where Mary was born without sin.

The church, refusing to acknowledge science, and fact, does far more harm to their own religion. I've been in a plane. God doesn't live "above" in the clouds somewhere. Heaven isn't up there either.

The church needs to embrace science. God gave us a brain to think, and to discover and understand. To simply deny fact and stay in a state of ignorance, or insist that ignorance=faith in God is to push people away from God when they equate such belief from moving away from ignorance.

 

[wanderingone]

Oooh the atheist agenda...

My daughter attended a liberal public university (as liberal as they can be these days with all the attempts to limit access to college) - she's now attending seminary... wow.... those liberal profs really tore her down and built her up to follow the atheist agenda.

My favorite college professor and good friend is an atheist, and we've gone head to head for years .... ever since I was an 18 year old freshman... he hasn't changed my beliefs at all....

My daughter attends a leftist high school (on purpose) there is ongoing debate about faith in her religious studies class, what I see is a kid becoming stronger in her faith, more mature, and less willing to speak or accept rhetoric, and learning to apply faith to her life while working among people who don't share the same beliefs.

 

[wanderingone]

hehe. I would posit that there are in reality far more atheists in the US population than most polls indicate. It's congruent to a homosexual's "coming out". I think that most atheists probably prefer to "stay in the closet" for obvious reasons.

I'd agree, and I think a large number of Christians, as with any group of believers in a nation where their religion is the predominant one a large % are nominal believers. Who like the "idea" of faith for the rules and traditions, but don't necessarily "believe" in God.

However, Christianity still wins out in its attempt to be everywhere from nationalist exercises (like the pledge) to determining candidates for public office (how many feel free to declare they are atheists?)

 

[woman.at.the.well]

hehe. I would posit that there are in reality far more atheists in the US population than most polls indicate. It's congruent to a homosexual's "coming out". I think that most atheists probably prefer to "stay in the closet" for obvious reasons.

I would have to agree with you selfinflikted!

Oooh the atheist agenda...

My daughter attended a liberal public university (as liberal as they can be these days with all the attempts to limit access to college) - she's now attending seminary... wow.... those liberal profs really tore her down and built her up to follow the atheist agenda.

My favorite college professor and good friend is an atheist, and we've gone head to head for years .... ever since I was an 18 year old freshman... he hasn't changed my beliefs at all....

My daughter attends a leftist high school (on purpose) there is ongoing debate about faith in her religious studies class, what I see is a kid becoming stronger in her faith, more mature, and less willing to speak or accept rhetoric, and learning to apply faith to her life while working among people who don't share the same beliefs.

I'd agree, and I think a large number of Christians, as with any group of believers in a nation where their religion is the predominant one a large % are nominal believers. Who like the "idea" of faith for the rules and traditions, but don't necessarily "believe" in God.

However, Christianity still wins out in its attempt to be everywhere from nationalist exercises (like the pledge) to determining candidates for public office (how many feel free to declare they are atheists?)

Excellent posts!

 

[Rochir]

Jesus Camp - 'nuff said!

 

[Vene]

Why didn't I get the newletter about the atheist agenda? I want to brainwash some kids too.

In all seriousness, it's real easy to teach kids to be atheist, just don't mention religion or bring them to any church, synagogue, temple, ect.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Atheist Agenda?! dammit and no one sent me a memo and commemorative fruit basket. I'll have to discuss that with the PR department.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Speaking as if atheism is a social clique that defines its members into itself through labels is incredibly irritating me. Organized atheism seems ridiculous to me, it kind of defeats the purpose of what the rebellion of atheism is meant to represent. Who knows though, maybe i'm just living in the original ideologies that don't have much prospect in the contemporary.

It just doesn't seem right though, to see us judge ourselves when we wish to give a field of 'freedom' to people who wish to escape such labels.