1. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #51607 by TedWak on June 23, 2007 at 5:50 pm

For me, the key to the fundamentalist versus moderate dstinction is not in their respective beliefs but in what they do, or the impact of what they do or say on others.

So the C of E may be "moderate" on many issues (despite at least one opinion that most believe literally in the Bible, historically the church was founded on waffling, as compared to Catholics). But on gay marriage, in UK and developing world, they're definitely not moderate.

Catholics are officially pretty fundamentalist (abortion, birth control, premarital sex, etc) but many lay people and priests silently ignore these edicts. It often depends which country or even which parish you're in.

I suspect there's a similiar disconnect in Islam between officialdom, real people in different parts of the world, and of course the extremists. But generally even moderate Muslims have a pretty major impact on such issues as treatment of women and children.

Evangelical Christians are generally more uniformly fundamentalist because they tend to follow the emotional incitations of a particular demigogue (demi-god?) and have had less history behind them to mellow into a kind of country club with a crucifix (like many "mainstream" churches have). Their beliefs not only keep their followers on a pretty rigid leash, some of the especially naive start living their whole lives for the church, risking their jobs and even family stability to do whatever the pastor asks of them (I've seen this happen a few times...)


At those are my observations from here in Canada...

TW

2. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51547 by TedWak on June 23, 2007 at 10:59 am

Thanks to Prof. Dawkins for adding some much-needed perspective on this piece. Though one may well ask why it's posted here in the first place (is it an automatic thing?) when the kneejerk response is to trash it mercilessly.

The "butterfly on wheel" phrase may be overkill but of course Baddiel is saying his first reaction to The God Delusion is that its arguments are overkill ... until he remembers what has been and continues to be wrought in name of religion.

This is one of the recurring themes of critics who basically agree with Dawkins but find him a bit impolite. By lumping all believers together, we find the doddering C of E country vicar whose three regular parishioners are two blue-haired ladies and a scottie suddenly in league with a wild-eyed Muslim suicide bomber.

Interesting, though, he looks to traditional psychological/sociological explanations for why people believe, not evolution.

But give the man a break.

TW

3. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51370 by TedWak on June 22, 2007 at 1:54 pm

This just shows to go you how silly things get when you apply rules without any flexibility or common sense. The school clearly let this get way out of hand. One wonders if there are other issues not talked about between the school and the girl (and/or her family), or why would they risk all the negative publicity (and ANY publicity for the girl and her d*****d ring).

If kids are getting away with nose and lip rings, what's the problem with a finger ring? If there's no safety concern, then let it go…

Yes, schools have the right to enforce their uniform policy – there are pros and cons for having uniforms or not (uniforms can be a "leveller" where there is wide economic differences among students) -- but pick your battles, ma'am.

TW

4. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51328 by TedWak on June 22, 2007 at 11:14 am

Ol' Preston probably really got a kick out of this one, getting to beat up on Catholics AND atheists in the same piece.

No, he's definitely not Catholic -- he's a Protestant Evangelical, part of a church (an off-shoot of Presbyterianism) that focuses on foreign missionary work, including refugee camps.

He's also son of Ernest Manning, Social Credit premier of Alberta (Canada's Texas) from 1943 to 1968. Social Credit was based on a nutso right-wing scheme involving redistributing public money to citizens, which never happened as it was ruled unconstitutional.

This is definite rhetorical overkill, which he's not really known for (though his leadership of the Reform Party was strongly moralistic and pro-Christian). I can't believe Preston actually thinks Dawkins and Harris want to take kids from their parents or otherwise get rid of religion by government edict, so I think he got carried away with the analogy.

I guess there is a bottom-line point about persecuting (attacking) people for their beliefs rather than their actions that Dawkins/Harris are a little cavalier about. Christians in particular were subject to official persecution in Communist regimes from the Soviet Union and Albania to Vietnam and Cambodia – and still are in China. As part of a church that's been heavily involved with refugees from some of these countries, no surprise he's more sensitive to language that gets a little aggressive sometimes.

His "ironic" reference to native people in Canada and "residential schools" – short-hand for decades of abuse they went through at the hands of government-sanctioned (and paid for) programs run by various churches here – is real cheap shot, aimed at the residual liberal guilt he supposes Canadian atheists would feel.

In a backhand way, though, it does raise an interesting point. Dawkins/Harris make little reference to "naturalist" religions like those of aboriginal peoples in America, Africa or Australia/New Zealand, focusing (appropriately) on the three biggees.

I'd be curious about their views, considering the deference paid in North America to these "cultures" For example, in both Canada and the US there's official preference for aboriginal couples to adopt aboriginal children – of which there are many, mainly so they don't "lose" their culture (which is also mainly about spiritual connections to their ancestors, etc.).

Of course, it's six of one/half dozen of another, as they would likely end up being brought up in a "white" religion anyway. Still, an interesting side point.

TW

5. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50715 by TedWak on June 19, 2007 at 3:21 pm

A couple of comments:

JackDavis said:

Hedges and his ilk really scare me. To believe, contra the evidence, that poverty is the cause of Muslim terrorism, is to put one's head in the sand.

I believe he said (or at least he has said elsewhere) that poverty and alienation cause terrorism. I would say it's more complicated than saying either poverty, or religious belief cause terriorism – rather, poverty (and pyschological alienation arising from it) creates fertile soil for Muslim extremism and then terror. The front-line terrorists may be more "religious" than political but the people who give them orders are likely more driven by cynical political motives, not dreams of virgins.

aznxscorpion517 said:

I'm also getting pretty annoyed with Chris Hedges position. I haven't even heard the whole thing yet and it's already getting to me. It's because it's very clear that he is defending HIS OWN version of god and religion. HIS view is not the WORLD view which is where the problem lies. AND HEDGES, who seems to believe he knows what Christianity really is, he must be asked if he is a TRUE Christian. Why? Because like what someone else said, he doesn't follow the scriptures literally. Aren't the people who follow the scriptures to the bone the REAL Christians? So are you Mr. Hedges, a Christian at all? Are you cherry picking like many others?

I'm not sure why Hedges or any other believer would or could defend any other set of beliefs besides their own. He may be the wrong person to do this debate but that doesn't make him contemptible.

I also don't understand the idea that dogmatism is (obviously) laughable but "cherry-picking" is … worse?

Scrape most so-called Christians, even true literal ones, and you'll find they don't actually believe what they're "supposed to." For one thing, they don't even know what they're supposed to believe. Even if they're cracked the Bible, that's a lot of proscriptions to carry around in your head. (This may apply less to Muslims, mainly because Islam is even more authoritarian and driven by ritual.)

Personally, I don't think any of these debates change the basic undebateable reality that the existence or non-existence of God is unprovable, and really not very interesting. All a believer can hope to do is to make belief sound more reasonable or palatable, which is almost an equally hopeless cause in terms of convincing anyone who doesn't want to be convinced (likewise for atheists trying to convince believers).

I'm more concerned (like Hedges, incidentally) about the implications of such discussions for action and morality, how people's beliefs or lack of them affect what they do.

TW

6. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50490 by TedWak on June 18, 2007 at 12:25 pm

DG: You said, in reference to my comment:

TedWak (post 715, or #50404)

For starters, I presume "gratuitous" (torture of children) means where the torture is an end in itself and serves no other purpose (let's not consider sadism another purpose). Why is this qualification so important? As a moral issue, can any torture of children be seen as "right" or "good"? If there are cases where torture of children is "acceptable," then it's a question of relative evil or wrongness – the lesser of two evils, as it were.

Well, people debate and disagree about most ethical propositions all the time (which fact does not imply that therefore ethics is not objective). But I cannot doubt that gratuitous torture is objectively wrong; I cannot even imagine how it would be to doubt that gratuitous torture is objectively wrong.

I'm not doubting that gratuitous torture of children is objectively wrong. I'm doubting that any torture of children is objectively right, that it can ever be anything more than the lesser of two evils and thus still short of morally right.

My argument pertains to absolute vs relative morality, not its "objectivity." I do, however, find it hard to think about this distinction (gratuitous vs non-gratuitous) in terms of an action that's objectively wrong. Is the pain and crumbling, helpless feeling inside (in our soul!?) as we watch a child tortured somehow assuaged because we know (believe?) that had to do so to achieve something else?

Is this just "instinct" that we have to get over? Or something else?

Yielding to this emotional if not moral conundrum obviously puts us in an impossible situation. But then God is used to those ...

Now, apply this whole line of thinking, mutatis mutandis, to war.

TW

7. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50404 by TedWak on June 17, 2007 at 10:40 pm

But here I only try to justify why I judge that my theistic worldview works better than naturalism, and am interested to find out what holes other posters can find in my argument or what counterarguments they can suggest.

I doubt anything I say or anyone else here says could persuade you that a naturalist worldview works better than a theistic one, for you. This is your opinion, or considered personal belief, and unlikely to be shaken by argument. I don't mean that in a derogatory way – the same holds for naturalists.

I also believe most of the "debates" on this sight range between discussions (good) and multiple rants (generally bad). This thread is a discussion, though I think it's starting to lose itself in abstruseness, if that's word. No persuasion will come out of it and I'm not sure how much insight.

That said, it's a game people can't resist, including me at times.

On re-consideration, I have to say your argument about objective morality is not a tautology, as there are other explanations for objective reality besides God (I was saying that if one accepts morality as objective and therefore independent of humans' minds, then what entity could possibly assign the action a positive or negative value – ie to be right or wrong – besides a supernatural one, or God). However, it's conceivable that an action is objectively right or wrong according to another independent standard, such as evolutionary efficacy (that is, certain actions directly or indirectly work for or against survival, and thus in our minds are "labelled" as right or wrong. [This is a possible example, not an argument])

Thus no tautology.

Another point: There's been a lot of discussion of "objective" versus "subjective" morality, but I'm interested in how this theist-naturalist stand-off relates to "absolute" versus "relative" morality.

For starters, I presume "gratuitous" (torture of children) means where the torture is an end in itself and serves no other purpose (let's not consider sadism another purpose). Why is this qualification so important? As a moral issue, can any torture of children be seen as "right" or "good"? If there are cases where torture of children is "acceptable," then it's a question of relative evil or wrongness – the lesser of two evils, as it were.

Does God give us this latitude to judge such things or do we give it to ourselves? This leads back to my comments about the morality of war.

As you know, some theists (Christian Mennonites, Quakers, etc among others) believe that war is "absolutely" (as well as objectively, one presumes) wrong and are absolute pacifists. Obviously, most Christians and other believes don't take this extreme view.

But in light of the many judgments involved in analyzing a particular war, I'm interested in how you believe God helps theists, Christians especially, make such weighty decisions.

TW

8. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50231 by TedWak on June 15, 2007 at 11:28 pm

I haven't struggled through all the posts, but based on the latest ones there seems to be confusion over terms here. "Objective" does not mean the same thing as "universal." Also, morality is a lot more slippery than either side seems to allow for.

There may be nearly universal belief in some kind of God but that doesn't necessarily make His existence objectively true. Or, more to the subject matter, the torture of children may be nearly universally condemned as wrong and abhorrent, but this doesn't mean it's "objectively" wrong, independent of people believing it's wrong.

To clarify, if Dianelos Georgoudis believes the torture of children is objectively wrong, it doesn't matter what people on this forum think or even if everyone in the world thinks it's OK. To him, the torture of children would still be wrong – not as a personal or subjective judgment, but as the result of an independent reality. This isn't, of course, in any way verifiable. It's just what DG believes.

This argument is also a tautology that leads directly to God. For to be independent of human minds, the objective "wrongness" of an act still depends on someone or something to value it negatively, and here it means something beyond normal human thought, that is, a supernatural being, must imbue it with wrongness.

(What about intuition, as Dianelos Georgoudis suggests? Again, I think there's some confusion here. There may be many explanations for our "gut" reaction that torturing children is wrong, but it still reflects our own judgment that it's wrong. The gut reaction doesn't suggest "objective" morality any more than a long and considered assessment that torturing children is wrong. It may reflect a shared cultural abhorrence, or perhap a deep evolutionary "lesson" about the psycho-social costs of involving one's children in conflict.)

But it seems to me a simple and reasonable response to DG is to deny that acts are objectively wrong or right -- is that unthinkable? And so whether God's existence best explains "objective morality' is irrelevant, since the premise is not accepted.

This doesn't end moral conundrums for atheists, though. (Nor does accepting objective morality wrap up the issue for theists, either.)

Maybe where DG is going here is that,for atheists, any standard for right and wrong comes down to practicality issues, whether short-term or long-term. A standard based on the Benthamian-Millian "greatest good for the greatest many" very quickly becomes a matter of practical assessment of weighing the risks and costs and benefits, and therefore the morality or immorality of any act is relative. Another possibility is to base morality on the action's utility in an evolutionary sense, the extent to which it contributes to an individual or his group's (eventual) survival.

On this basis, for instance, it seems reasonable to condemn murder as immoral. Yet it really may be "just" counterproductive, or anti-social, or even counter-intuitive. The negative moral value we ascribe to it is, well, perhaps a legacy of our religious culture (as French atheist Michel Onfray would have it).

And maybe this is fine. It's just semantics, after all. Or perhaps the strong stigma we apply to "immoral" acts (and the celebration of moral acts) is unconscious reinforcement of a long evolutionary pattern.

Another problem is that the morality of actions is often relative, not absolute. The crux of a wrong or right action to atheists, as much as religious moralists, is in the intention not the act itself (as reflected in our judicial system).

For example, killing someone in self-defence is not generally considered murder. The killer "had no choice," did not decide to kill their assailant but decided to protect themselves. And, theoretically, this meets the utility standard, in killing to save their own life they may have also rid the world of a potential "murderer" who might have killed others (people whom he may have intended to kill, which would make him less desirable than the "killer" who just defended themselves with no specific intention of killing anyone).

But if killing in self-defence is not murder, not a crime, not punishable – which is as it should be – is it still in any way wrong or immoral? Does intention completely eclipse the action, whether we're talking about killing, stealing to support one's family or torturing people (even children) to gain information that may prevent a catastrophe?

Under such analysis, traditional ideas of morality start to slide into relativity and practical considerations. But, interestingly enough, this applies to religious-based morality as much as atheist models.

Take for example the Catholic Church's traditional criteria for what constitutes a Just War (from Aquinas and Augustine): good likely to outweigh bad, fought by a duly constituted government, likely to succeed, spare non-combatants, etc. These are all political and practical judgments, with little in the Bible or anywhere else to guide the believer.

The invasion of Iraq could probably go either way, looking only at the factor of "chances of success." If one was ignorant of circumstances within Iraq and looked to the first Gulf War and the power and "intelligent weaponry" of the US military, one might quite plausibly say the war met the criterion. On the other hand, better understanding of the situation in Iraq and of the myopia of American intelligence, among other things, would lead a reasonable person to conclude success was unlikely and therefore pursuing the war would be immoral.

"Morality" is fraught with conundrums like this, whether God's in the equation or not. Our best and only guide, short of invoking the Almighty on every small decision, is our best judgment, based on knowledge, reason and good intentions. These intentions may come from God, or not.

EB

9. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49852 by TedWak on June 13, 2007 at 10:22 pm

For a topic that is (I believe) basically undebateable, this sure is turning into a long and rather tedious thread. (The fact consciousness can't -- yet -- be scientifically anaylzed in any detail doesn't mean God stuck it in our heads. Of course, it doesn't mean He didn't either. So let's debate how big our knowledge gap is...)

So why am I reading this? Always looking for moments of insight. Or witty aforisms. Or terrible spelling (see previous sentence).

But glad to see everyone's behaving themselves.

I'll have something more profound to add once I have a religious experience. Or some LSD.

TW

10. The New Atheists

Comment #49413 by TedWak on June 11, 2007 at 9:38 pm

Aronson's proposal is simple common sense. This struggle is mainly a political one and in keeping with America's traditional separation of church and state -- challenging attempts of a religion to influence government and society, and seeking harmony, justice and equality among a variety of communities and individuals.

Those here who hesitate or vaccilate seem to suggest another, unspoken "long-term" agenda that can't include beievers. Yes, to rid the world of faith, of course. But how does one do that within a liberal democracy, except through pursuasion and example? And how does one do that without understanding in some deeper way why believers believe?

All in the all, this "coalition" seems in everyone's best interests.

TW

11. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49308 by TedWak on June 11, 2007 at 12:56 pm

I thought this debate was one of the best I've seen, with both sides offering insight into their thought processes and also listening to each other.

It also offered a defining moment of their disagreement. As scientists, they were able to walk together (intellectually) to the brink of existence (or the origins of the universe) where no further evidenced-based explanation (yet) exists.

At that point, Dawkins stops and says he can go no further because to do so would be pure, un-testable conjecture. McGrath admits this but says he must walk into the unknown because it fills his need to have a reasonable explanation of the universe and his own life. Dawkins replies that it's not "reasonable," and again McGrath agrees but still he must go on.

Dawkins persists, saying the idea that a complex God would fill this gap is illogical and unlikely because reason suggests the origin of the universe should be simple. McGrath doesn't disagree but persists in his belief.

This predicament reminds me of a logical chestnut I heard at school where a philosophy professor tells his staff there will be a surprise test the next week. The "bright" student says that's impossible. How so, replied the prof. Well, it can't be next Friday because on Thursday it wouldn't be a surprise for us, the student reasoned. If Friday is eliminated, then it can't be Thursday either, by the same logic. And so it goes back to Monday. You're right, says the prof – and holds the surprise test anyway.

Even though such paradoxes can be solved, the resolution is never quite as intriguing as the initial statement.

And so it is with "sophisticated" believers like McGrath. His world view and the source of meaning in his life don't rest exclusively on logic and reason. This isn't a round about insult – it's an observation that probably applies to millions of people who otherwise accept most of the precepts of science and reason.

Another point of note: I did think McGrath, early on, opened up then closed an opportunity to shut down a key Dawkins stratagem: to hold each believer (or type of religion) responsible for the crimes of all the others.

If pursued, their discussion might have looked something like this:

McGrath: I must ask you, Richard, does it trouble you at all to be in the same camp as such ruthless tyrants as Stalin and Pol Pot, to name just two atheist leaders of the last century?

Dawkins: Well, actually, no, Alister – not at all. As far as I know, Stalin may or may not have been primarily an atheist – that is, that atheism was what most motivated him – and I know even less about Pol Pot. But whatever foul things they may have done they have nothing to do with me and my interpretation of atheism.

McGrath (tilting head): Quite. Then you won't fault me, Richard, if I say that the Muslim fundamentalists who flew jets into the World Trade Centre or who blow themselves up in busy markets, or even the Christian Crusaders who slaughtered the Saracens or those who believe in Creationism – all have nothing to do with me and my interpretation of God.

Dawkins: I suppose my response to that, Alister, would be that you do share a foolish and sentimental faith in something for which there is no evidence. And as far as the Christians you mention go, you do take your guidelines for morality from the same egregious little book.

McGrath: That "egregious little book" – two books, actually, though the first is less important – is far more complex and open to exegesis than the Marxist doctrine that Stalin or Pol Pot followed …

Dawkins: … and which I don't follow.

McGrath: Why, certainly you do. We all do, at least in thinking about society and the social studies. Marxism underpins modern academia.

Dawkins: Well, I don't know much about the social sciences but …

McGrath: I thought not.

Dawkins: Oh fob off and let me finish.

Producer (off mike): Can we do that again? Your audience has no idea what "egregious" or "exegesis" mean.

TW

12. A Quote Against Theocracy

Comment #49177 by TedWak on June 10, 2007 at 10:29 pm

I feel truly sorry for those here whose experience with believers has left them so bitter that they must savage each and every one, even -- as in this example -- when they find no fault with (even support!) what he says.

For some reason, they reserve special contempt for moderate Christians. It reminds me of Stalinists attacking socialists in pre-war Germany with more vigour than the Nazis (soon both groups were gone). One can imagine the response here to the post from a fundie Muslim with jihad on his mind:

"Well, at least he's honest about wanting to kill us all. Maybe we should ask him round for tea."

TW

13. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #48559 by TedWak on June 8, 2007 at 11:30 am

"First Communion" is a milestone on the way to becoming Catholic but they are confirmed at 12 or 13. They're supposed to have learned all the ceremonial stuff by then. Between 7 and 13 they can only have bread at mass -- no wine (what a rip off!).

I'm not sure as to their status as sinners. They may have to start going to confession at 7. Of course, if they die as babies before they are baptised they go into "limbo" forever. Kind of like living in Cleveland, I hear.

Other Christian churches have similar rites of passage, usually at adolescence. (First communion is an extra step.) Jews have bar/bat mitzvahs. Don't know about Muslims. (First suicide bombing? Ooops, sorry, that's disrespectful).

TW

14. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48429 by TedWak on June 7, 2007 at 11:26 pm

Hobson clearly says atheists are "intellectual cowards" because they prefer simplicity over complexity.

There may be some religious people for whom life (and waiting for death) is a breeze because they believe Daddy is watching over them and waiting for them. I haven't met any.

I have had, unfortunately, the experience of being with several lifelong church-goers awaiting death. Some were braver or sadder or more afraid or more accepting than others. I don't recall any mentioning God or heaven. Instead they talked about missing the people they love, and occasionally, half-heartedly, about joining "Uncle Fred" or "Aunt Mary" soon.

Faith isn't a happy pill.

TW

15. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #48425 by TedWak on June 7, 2007 at 11:09 pm

For the record, Philip1978, about the 7-year old "Catholic" girl. She actually only becomes officially Catholic at Confirmation, when she is 13.

Anabaptists ("second" baptists) or Mennonites are baptised again as adults for the precise reasons you give.

TW

16. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48352 by TedWak on June 7, 2007 at 2:42 pm

So again someone calls atheists arrogant and they rise to the occasion and prove him right.

Why does every discussion of religion have to be a zero-sum game? Atheists win, faith-heads lose?

And why do believers have to defend every sort of religion? Dawkins and Hitchens lump them together but that doesn't mean it's the only legitimate way of looking that the world.

Again, I don't see why every writer who defends or clarifies what they believe has to "prove" their case. Do I have to prove to you that I love my wife, or that doing so is reasonable? It's just what I do.

Hobson isn't being arrogant nor is he an idiot. He simply says Dawkins, Hitchens et al. refuse to allow that religion is complex and includes a wide range and variety of beliefs. That there is a difference between Islamic fundamentalists, moderate Christians and those who believe in fairies or a giant teapot in the sky.

It's one thing to deny God exists and to say religion is responsible for much evil in the world, yet quite another to dismiss all aspects of religion out hand.

When anthropologists study some strange tribe in the jungles of Brazil or Borneo, they don't hold back from examining the tribe's religion, saying "It's not true, you know." Or say it doesn't deserve to be studied because it's "irrational" or to do so would give it undeserved respect. They study it because it's part of what makes defines this tribe's civilization.

And so it is with the varying faiths that make up western civilization (and every other one).

Hobson's other major point is that when atheists say that religion is responsible for most of the world's evils they tend to generalize and avoid discussing particulars that might muddy the waters. Again, he has a point.

Take Hitler, for example. Dawkins, Hitchins et al have countered the common argument that Hitler was an atheist by noting that he was in fact a Catholic and he attacked Jews because of their traditional demonization within Christianity. This is more or less true (depending on which historian you read).

However, this does not mean the Third Reich and the Second World War exemplify the excesses of religion. Nationalism, economics, power politics and the strange vagaries of der Fuehrer's mind are more to blame than religion. And so it is with other great and complex calamities of the past.

But certain atheists prefer simplistic explanations. Hitchens, for instance, absolutely refuses to accept any driving force besides Islam behind suicide bombers in the Middle East. (Religion may be the sole thing motivating the individual who blow themselves up but those who promise them martyrdom surely have more complex motivations.)

Maybe some flexible thinking is needed…?

TW

17. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #48006 by TedWak on June 6, 2007 at 9:02 am

This proposition sounds naïve and silly, however well intentioned. (Which is why Dawkins has shied away from an approach as direct as this one.) People are going with their emotions in supporting it, apparently feeling that because their suspicion of religion is based on rational analysis any response to the abuses of religion must also be rational. This is obviously not true.

Why is the religious indoctrination of children any worse than child poverty, or physical or sexual abuse, or child slavery for that matter? We're not doing a very good job curbing these issues, even in western democracies. Armies of social workers have a tough job trying to enforce laws where the solution that's best for the child is not always clear (ie, when do you seize children, when do you try to educate parents, when do you walk away). A safe environment is important for raising children but so is keeping them with their parents, as a general rule.

Of course, practical problems don't mean society shouldn't try to correct bad situations. But we have to be absolutely clear on what we're doing and why, and what underlying principles govern our action. This is less about secularism versus faith as pure politics: the kind of society we want to build.

Denying state funding to religious schools is one accepted way to separate church and state. Making religious schools illegal, on the basis that they "abuse" children, is more problematic in a liberal democracy. Would this apply to ALL faith schools, or just those run by "extremists"? Would there need to be some evidence the school actively promotes hatred or violence? Would it apply to church-related "Sunday schools" or just academic schools?

Such laws, besides violating constitutional protections for free speech and free association (not to mention freedom of religion) in some democracies, would merely drive these schools underground.

Then there's the hottest issue -- how would governments stop parents from indoctrinating their kids at home? We're just not going there.

There are now (generally) adequate laws in most western democracies to protect children from the most abusive aspects of religious instruction and living in a highly controlled religious (or non-religious, for that matter) environment. Enforcement will always be a major hurdle.

While the state has a stake in how children are raised, determining when and how it can interfere in a family situation is hugely sensitive and debateable. For better or worse, parents do have near complete control over what happens in their homes. Forget sexual abuse or religious indoctrination – look at the harm caused by parents smoking, drinking, driving drunk, eating poorly, endlessly criticizing their offspring… the list goes on.

Let's stay real here.

TW

18. Why Do Some People Resist Science?

Comment #46784 by TedWak on June 1, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Interesting article. Not sure why Canada isn't on the list, but if it were it would probably be somewhere between the US and the UK.

The article suggests deference to authority may play a role here too. Traditionally, Brits are often portrayed as much more trusting of their government and authority in general than Yanks (thus US has more formal "checks and balances" against abuse by government, more protection of individual freedoms, etc.) Canada is somewhere in the middle, as it's influenced by both cultures. (These are generalizations, of course.)

How does this relate to evolution? Well, from the article one could infer that scientists are part of the social elite, of whom Americans are naturally more skeptical than Brits. And since acceptance of evolution seems to rely on people trusting scientists more than their own understanding (i.e., this has little to do with intelligence), you end up with the results on the chart.

So, you could argue the same basic oneryness (contrariness?) in Americans that drives them to become atheists also makes them question (and doubt) evolution and spin conspiracy theories more than, say, Brits or Canadians. (Atheists – or at least the clever ones on this site – accept evolution either because they've figured out on their own that scientists are generally trustworthy, or read a Darwin for Dummies book.)

But this doesn't explain why Yanks seem to believe their religious leaders more than Brits. Maybe church leaders are seen as closer to home and their communities than politicians and intellectuals like scientists.

Practical implications of all this? I hate to say it but Dawkins' British accent probably does more harm than good in the places where Creationists thrive. He (and others) has to bite the bullet and accept that some alliances need to be forged with moderate church people who accept evolution.

19. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44920 by TedWak on May 25, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Most of Hedges' piece is not even aimed at atheists – it's a call for more traditional believers (mainly Christians) to focus on what's truly important to him, which is action (helping others) not profession of faith (aligning oneself with a community and comforting oneself).

It's an interesting if unoriginal take on what religion means, or should means, in Hedges' eyes. But it's not debateable. In fact, by his own admission, to set it out in a more clear and reasoned way, uncluttered by doubt, would amount to arrogance and self-satisfaction.

In light of this, and even more in light of his background (check out his recent articles on Truthdig.com – he's engaged in a one-man campaign to sound warning bells about the influence of the Christian Right in the US), you have to wonder why Hedges wanted to debate Harris in the first place.

Besides winning the odd convert to his brand of Christianity, I suspect his motivation was to subtly undermine atheists like Harris and Dawkins (less so Hitchens and Dennett) who claim moderate believers are as dangerous to society as extremists.

And what's to fear in an action-oriented "religion" based on the principles of true altruism (no promises of heaven or threats of hell), social justice and personal humility? You may wonder if it's really a religion but that's beside the point: poke many moderates and you'll find there's less faith there than a loyalty to their "community."

From most of the comments here, it seems Hedges hasn't succeeded in shaking this prejudice against moderates (which what I believe it is, being based more on personal experience and instinct than a rational argument).

This is too bad, for Hedges like other like-minded Christians – I'm less familiar with those of other faiths – is a useful and wise ally in the struggle against politicized religion in America and elsewhere.

To give some perspective, here's a comment from a more "immoderate" Christian on another of Hedges' articles (from Truthdig):

You've got it only about half right, Chris. While there is certainly a concern to be had about a new Reichschurch - I've written about it on several occasions in the past - in the usual style of the secular unfamiliarist, you paint with too broad a brush. You perceive any level of belief as childish. You make this patently absurd - and insulting - statement, for example: "The Christian right has lured tens of millions of Americans, who rightly feel abandoned and betrayed by the political system, from the reality-based world to one of magic—to fantastic visions of angels and miracles, to a childlike belief that God has a plan for them and Jesus will guide and protect them."
Believe me, sir, a Catholic, I believe in angels and miracles, that God has a plan for me and that Jesus will guide and protect me. You don't have to be a member of the Evangelical right or the Reichschurch to have such a faith. A little advice: While in very broad outline your thesis may have merit, when you generalize in the way you have here you simply betray the naivete and the anti-Christian presuppositions with which you seem tortured. Take the hate out of the equation and knowledgable people just might take you seriously."

Hedges' other comments on Harris's book are reasonable enough. He says that while we may naturally blame Islam for such horrific new trends like suicide bombers, culture and politico-economic circumstances also play their part. (Not all Muslim countries are seeing suicide bombers.) Islam is obviously the means to get individual bombers to do their bit, the deeper motivation is more complicated.

If we want to find a way to stop suicide bombing (rather than simply link it to Islam and then attack Muslim people), this point is worth considering.

Again, I think Hedges has some good things to say. No need to dismiss him just because he won't give up being a believer.

TW

20. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43770 by TedWak on May 22, 2007 at 2:31 pm

You have to wonder about the value of some of these discussions. Kinda like dragging a prisoner of war through the streets for everyone to give a kick, if that's not too strong an analogy.

I also question why some of these religious folk think they have to defend all "people of faith." Dawkins et al. may lump them all together but it's certainly not a natural or easy alliance, so why would they want to be lumped.

A far as the question Easterbrook is trying to answer, it's not a debate that really leads anywhere (besides being completely hypothetical) – though Dawkins/Hitchens did open this can of worms.

Religion has been part of human society for millennia, so it obviously has played a role in conflicts between different peoples. In the last thousand years of European history, with a few exceptions like the Crusades and the 30 Years War pure power politics and economics have probably caused more wars than faith itself. On the other hand religion has played a larger role in internal conflicts pitting a majority against a minority, and resulted in some of the worst massacres (maybe partly because the majority didn't have to worry about retaliation).

How to judge what's better or worse?

Whatever the case, these historical conflicts only matter where they continue today, fed by grievances and divisions from the past. The question then is, how to find enough common ground to reach some compromises and mutual tolerance.

This process is mainly political but in many situations – Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestinians, for example – it will mean religious people, notably religious leaders, having to moderate their stands. If outside people, especially non-believers, want to help, they'll have to understand enough of the religious aspect of the conflict (irrational as it may seem) to offer useful advice.


Regarding the grammatical point (comments #6 and #47), the accepted wisdom seems to be that ending a sentence with a preposition, while generally to be avoided in formal writing, is not only permissible but in some cases preferred (see Fowler, Oxford, Ted Bernstein, various style guides). As long as the sentence is strong and fluid, as one such guide puts it, this isn't something "we should lose any sleep over."

In this vein, commenting on war-time memos, Churchill is supposed to have said (tongue firmly in one cheek, cigar in the other): "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put."

TW

21. True faith is greater than the ranters

Comment #41319 by TedWak on May 15, 2007 at 10:11 pm

This piece in The New Yorker makes some interesting points about what opinion polls really tell us about what people belief (this is an aside -- the article also weighs in on Hitchens, Dawkins et al.).

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/05/21/070521crbo_books_gottlieb?currentPage=all

I think Dawkins underestimates the number and influence of moderate and "nuanced" (his word) believers -- Christians especially in Europe and North America. Whatever they may tell poll-takers, for many their belief is neither unquestioned nor particularly comfortable. Then why do they continue to believe or got to church, you may well ask.

Well, some just go to church, for various personal reasons, and don't think about it. Others wrestle with aspects of dogma that trouble them but still are drawn by the shared sense of community and serenity.

Whatever the case, they are worlds apart from fundamentalists, whether Islamic or Christian, and the argument that their belief somehow supports the extremists is tenuous, and really just a stubbornly held opinion.

Gay marriage is admittedly one area where moderates can quickly become extreme and objectionable. However, this bigotry, though religious in origin of course, is more a cultural than religious artefact, a prejudice so deep that many who oppose gay marriage would deny they are being influenced by their religion. "It's just against nature," they would say. And many gay-bashers are completely unreligious, just as many moderate believers accept gay marriage.

22. How multiculturalism is betraying women

Comment #37471 by TedWak on May 4, 2007 at 2:23 pm

There are obviously many definitions and ways multiculturalism is applied. The dictionary definition is simply that a society/community has many cultures, and multicultural policies simply advocate promoting such a society.

Some countries may interpret this to mean complete cultural equality or relativism but not many would follow this to the extreme (or so I thought until I read about these German examples.)

We need more accurate terms to describe the range of positions here – like maybe intolerance, tolerance, reasonable accommodation and cultural relativism.

Treating different cultures fairly doesn't mean treating them exactly the same. But at the same time, equal application of the law can allow for reasonable accommodation.

For example -- to use an analogy -- you wouldn't expect inspectors to overlook health code violations by an ethnic restaurant on the basis that the owner was used to different standards in his home country.

But if the restaurant didn't have any chairs (say it was Japanese) it would be intolerant to say, "No, that's just too weird – you gotta have chairs."

Decisions on such matters should be made based on common sense, good will and, as much as possible, by the local community. The only time central governments or courts should intervene is where the law is broken, or basic human/civil rights trampled.

Should girls be allowed to wear a hijab (head scarf) in school? Generally, let the school decide but why not, if there isn't a strict dress code? To play soccer, maybe not, as there is a safety issue. But if the local soccer association wants to accept that risk, that should be their call.

Burkas, which cover the entire face, are a bit different. It's not unreasonable to say they would cause problems in a school situation, for security and disciplinary reason as well as the basic teaching process.

Similarly with kirpan daggers. There would seem to be an obvious risk in allowing Sikh boys to wear a kirpan to school, so it would reasonable, not intolerant, to prohibit them.

The highest court in my own country, Canada, has ruled that banning kirpans in schools is unconstitutional. I think this is a bad decision: it assumes the non-ceremonial (aggressive) use of kirpans is so unlikely as to make banning them only explainable as intolerance.

This should be a community decision – that is, made by each school or school board – based on balancing public risk against reasonable accommodation. Some school boards may be OK with them but to ban them is not completely arbitrary.

And so it goes. Working out common sense, balanced and flexible decisions may be hard work but ultimately it's the best way to go.

23. How multiculturalism is betraying women

Comment #37167 by TedWak on May 3, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Absolutely, this is about not throwing out the baby with the bath water and it's about re-defining multiculturalism. It's not really about religion, but about creating a new society comprising many immigrant and other cultural groups.

The question is, What's the alternative to multiculturalism (carefully defined) – complete intolerance? Obviously not. These issues can't be black and white (pun intended).

This blog from a conservative source highlights the challenge liberalism faces, in re-defining multiculturalism and itself.

http://www.newcriterion.com/weblog/2007/04/ian-buruma-and-multiculruralism.html

24. How multiculturalism is betraying women

Comment #36950 by TedWak on May 2, 2007 at 10:33 pm

The judge's rationale is absurd and assinine, but the writer's view that there is no reconciling "multiculturalism" and human rights is also wrong.

Multiculturalism simply recognizes that a society comprises many different cultures and people should try, in the interest of harmony, to learn a bit about other cultures and not condemn differences just because they're strange.

But that doesn't mean tossing out the law of the land or liberal democratic principles -- or trying to judge the state of a Muslim marriage in light of the Koran.

Tolerance of innocuous cultural behaviour is fine, even laudable. Tolerance of violence, rape, murder as culturally determined is, well, -- intolerable.

It's not that hard a concept. This judge must be suffering big time from post-Third Reich guilt.

25. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34217 by TedWak on April 23, 2007 at 2:27 pm

A lot of the criticism of the so-called New Atheists for being dogmatic and militant is hyperbole but it does has some basis.

Both Dawkins and Harris have come down pretty hard on moderate believers, refusing to accept them as allies in the battle against terrorism and Creationists, or for stem-cell research, for example. (Both have softened their tone at times but the point generally stands.) Refusing to compromise with believers of any sort – especially in light of what's at stake – smacks of obtuseness or sheer egotism. It's reminiscent of the decision of Communists in the early years of Nazi Germany to keep attacking "bourgeois" Socialists rather than the real enemy (neither party survived).

Likewise, charges of "militancy" sound overblown but there's a difference between loudly standing up for the right to be atheist and a declared campaign to eradicate religion. In Western nations that already often separate church and state in law, the key questions in the near future will be where to draw the line between the interests of a secular society and arbitrary intolerance of any vestige of religion (or the culture associated with that religion).

Atheists may feel they are simply prodding anti-rational practices toward the dustbin of history. But unless those practices are illegal or otherwise violate the spirit of liberal democracy – in which case atheists have every right, indeed responsibility, to be "intolerant." -- you're well advised to be patient, and reserved in your language.

26. Is God poison?

Comment #31007 by TedWak on April 10, 2007 at 3:25 pm

I think Bethune is trying to be balanced and largely succeeds, despite his obvious bias for Hitchens and against Dawkins and Harris. But let's face it there are a lot of differences in emphasis among these three, not to mention Michel Onfray, even though they're all strong polemicists against religion.

Bethune's biggest criticism (mainly of Dawkins and Harris) is pretty common – that they disdain moderates when moderates seem like pretty reasonable allies in the fight against extremists. (Hitchens seems more open to moderates [haven't read his book yet] while Onfray is out there in the academic stratosphere.)

I think Dawkins and especially Harris are barking up the wrong tree by blaming moderate believers for the current social tolerance for fundamentalist religions. This is a hole political liberals dug, motivated by both "imperialist" guilt and a genuine desire for social harmony. Moderate believers simply followed them into the hole (of course, many of the liberals happened also to be moderate believers but that was coincidental).

The trick for liberals (which I consider myself) is to dig themselves out without compromising their basic principles. There are many reasonable standards of behaviour our secular societies can insist on that are not intolerant, racist or arbitrary. Many are in our existing laws; others can be worked out on a case by case basis. But it will take intellectual toughness and political will to apply these standards equally to all, with no cultural favouritism or ill-will. These principles, incidentally, do not just include the usual protections of civil liberties but also the general goal of social harmony. It will as always be a fine balance.

Dawkins has been pretty careful on this issue but then again he's the least political of the bunch. Harris often walks a slippery slope; I believe he's far too willing to believe we have to sacrifice basic freedoms and sensitivities to ensure 9/11 never happens again. Hitchens blows hot and cold, depending how strong his support for Bush is at the time. It will be interesting to read his new book.

On Dawkins' alleged anti-Americanism, recall that Americans generally have far more faith in their style of democracy than do others, especially Europeans. So it's not surprising that even American intellectuals take rather personally any criticism of popular US culture or politics that cuts a wide swath.

27. It is possible to respect the believers but not the belief

Comment #29929 by TedWak on April 5, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Sorry, that should be Garton Ash, the author (I thought I had corrected it).

Roach, I have to disagree with you about the respect that Dawkins and his followers show those who disagree with them. This site is littered with ad hominems and snide comments. It's hard to see how suggesting someone is an idiot or intellectually fraudulent because of their beliefs constitutes respecting the person, and Dawkins is not immune saying such things himself.

Dawkins is aware that he is seen as unduly rancorous – he calls it "passionate" – and has tried to be more restrained. His debates with Francis Collins are a good example. On the other, he has also said he wouldn't work with Collins, despite some obvious areas of common scientific interest, because Collins is a Christian.

I think this approach stems from the aggressive questioning posture Dawkins et al. take on, rather than simple curiosity.

One can imagine moderate Christians, Jews and Muslims sharing information about their ceremonies and traditions. Throw in a Dawkins atheist, and suddenly the questions are loaded, until you get, "You don't actually believe that, do you?" In some cases, you may get some stimulating discussion but for the average group of people you'd just get some defensive responses and the conversation would be over. I'm not sure what the point would be.

I'm glad you're able to have conversations with your theology student friend but you may be more the exception than the rule.

Finally, on the role of religion in Western Civ, etc, maybe "traditions and structures" are better terms than "values." I thought this point would be fairly uncontroversial – after all, isn't this why atheists have been marginalized (because of dominance of Jud-Xianity)?

The point I was making is that, even if religion can be said to be responsible for most of the bad things that have happened (which is highly debateable), its influence on both sides of the ledger has been so strong it's difficult to conclude that without it our society would be necessarily better. It would certainly be different.

28. It is possible to respect the believers but not the belief

Comment #29658 by TedWak on April 3, 2007 at 11:15 pm

Gart Ashton's main point is that, while in general moderate believers of a variety of faiths seem to have found a way to live with one another by respecting the believer (the person, who may be a neighbour or friend) though not necessarily the belief, atheists in the Dawkins-Harris mould seem unable or unwilling to do so. (The tone and content of many comments here seem to bear that out.)

To be more concrete: a moderate liberal Christian is unlikely to try to change a Muslim tennis partner's mind about the nature of the after-life (and vice-versa). But a Dawkins-Harris atheist, it seems, would be unable to resist hectoring questions, whether half in jest or not.

Such personal civility – which is all it really is – does not mean accepting sharia law or the teaching of creationism in schools, nor does the author suggest it does.

As for the historical role of religion, Judaeo-Christian values have so permeated the development of Western Civilization – for better or worse – it's hard to imagine modern society without them. (Some atheists, like France's Michel Onfray, say we need to do exactly that, and strip away all vestiges of our religious heritage, no matter how inconsequential they may appear.)

On the other hand, the influence of Christianity in specific events is just one thread among many. Other threads or factors shaping historical changes have included economic trends, geo-political power struggles, demography, personal ambition and fortuitous decisions, and pure coincidence. It is difficult if not impossible to show that if the single thread of religion is pulled away that many terrible things in our history would not have happened anyway, though perhaps in a different manner or on a different timetable.

29. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #27200 by TedWak on March 23, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Note this recent decision in Quebec re face-veils. Interesting, since French-Quebeckers have faced charges of ongoing racism ever since the last referendum on independence (1995) when the then-leader of the separatist party blamed the No victory partly on "new ethnic groups."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/elxn_que

30. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #27165 by TedWak on March 23, 2007 at 10:28 am

ghostbuster is right that Canada (actually Ontario, Canada's largest province) has rejected sharia law as a formal part of the legal system.

As for "schools of faith," as they call them in UK, more that half the school system in Ontario is officially Roman Catholic, funded by taxpayers.

Taxpayers choose whether to pay their school taxes to the "public" system or the "separate" (Catholic) system, but both get their budgets topped up from general government funds. Catechism, etc. is part of the curriculum, though not mandatory for graduating high school. While non-Catholic students can attend separate schools (and vice-versa), in some districts it's difficult for non-Catholic teachers to get hired by a separate school – some schools demand a letter from your parish (Catholic) priest saying you attend regularly. (Some of this may have changed – I haven't lived in Ontario for 15 years – but the basics are still true.)

There are historical reasons for this situation dating back to Confederation, as much to do with language as religion – a trade-off between Quebec and Ontario. Quebec has moved on, but Ontario hasn't found the political will yet. There are basic civil liberty issues at stake, for atheists and non-Catholics of other faiths.

As for sharia law, no one's mentioned the use of native (North American) healing circles, etc., in legal system: does this offend atheists? And where do we send them back to, folks? Maybe everyone else should go back to where WE came from…

But more seriously, I think the issues at stake here are mainly political, not religious and I agree with those who have framed them in those terms.

Democracy, especially liberal democracy, is about dealing with the exceptions and accommodations necessary to building harmonious communities, while remaining true to a few basic principles.

For better or worse, Canada (Pierre Trudeau) is credited with inventing multiculturalism and while our version of it is not a panacea I think we're probably a lot further down the road to dealing with the issues of a multi-ethnic society than our neighbours to the south or across the pond (now there's a baited hook if I ever saw one…!).

Right now, 60-80% of Canadians are religious in some way or another. Face it, ghostbuster, you aren't going to get your way on the "no public display of religion" card for a while.

31. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26585 by TedWak on March 20, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Michael writes:

"The only way human beings can come to understand each other is by learning how to stand in each other's shoes." is enough -- there are things I cannot respect.

There is no need, of course, to respect anyone or their views as long as you are simply a debating club or gathering place for likeminded folks (though "debates" are usually better if there are two points of view represented). And that may be where the Richard Dawkins site now stands.

But if at some point Dawkins himself and his followers wish to actually effect some changes in society then I think you'll agree you need to make some alliances with people who aren't atheists.

I don't know if this is possible. Dawkins has been quoted saying he will not compromise and ally himself with "moderate believers" since their acceptance of seemingly innocuous beliefs gives credibility to fundamentalist or extreme beliefs. Sam Harris has said much the same thing.

These views remind me of the refusal of the doctrinaire Communist Party in Germany in the mid-1930s to support socialists and other non-communist leftists because they didn't accept Stalinism, just before the Nazi machine crushed them all. (And no, I'm not saying atheists are Stalinists..)

Dawkins' position is simply an opinion, an unsupported canard. The difference between moderates and extremist is of kind, not degree. Moderate believers – Christians, in any event, and especially Protestants – applied reason to religious dogma over centuries and produced something quite distinct from the original texts.

They are also generally children of the Enlightenment: They may not have gone far enough in the view of atheists but the difference between them and fundamentalists – and particularly those of Islam – is reflected in their support of secular political principles and institutions.

Such support, by religious and secular people alike, will be critical as we sort out the thorny issues involved in balancing recognition of cultural (and religious) diversity and the need for greater social integration.

There aren't easy answers and we can all bring some wisdom to the discussion – if we wish to.

32. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #26037 by TedWak on March 16, 2007 at 7:20 am

Prayer is the biggest load of BS that the religites can come up with. A study was done last year, published in the American Heart Journal which PROVED that there was no positive effect WHATSOEVER.

I'm as skeptical of the power of prayer as the next person but I'm wondering how you know the American Heart Journal study is obviously valid and this latest is not. And how did everyone read the study in its entirety so quickly to pass judgment?

I'm playing devil's advocate but by holding up one "bizarre" study you give credence to the other one.

33. Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position

Comment #24941 by TedWak on March 9, 2007 at 12:01 pm

I'm not sure of the status of your "ban faith schools" petition but I hope you are rethinking it.

If it means that faith schools should be outlawed, rather than cut off from government funding, then I think it is clearly offensive to liberal democratic principles and dangerous to social harmony, regardless of one's beliefs about God or religion. It's also just plain bad politics and PR for atheists.

In Canada, where I live, making faith schools illegal would be unconstitutional, and I imagine the U.S. would offer similar protection on the grounds of freedom of expression and association. (As I said, this doesn't mean governments would be obliged to fund them, or that governments couldn't remove their charitable tax status.)

Another more practicable option is simply to remove their certification to provide education to pre-baccalaureate level if they don't follow a set curriculum. In Canada (I think – education is a provincial responsibility and so the rules vary greatly), this would mean they could still operate but graduates would have to pass special tests to go on to college or university.

A stricter law, however, would only drive such schools underground. More important, it would further divide religious and secular society, inevitably focusing on Islamic and Orthodox Jewish communities. (One just has to ask, if it became increasingly difficult, legally or financially, to operate such schools, which ones would persist.)

And then the budding atheist movement would face charges of racism. I don't think that would help you.

Richard Dawkins is absolutely right to be guarded in terms responding to parents "indoctrinating" their children. Indoctrination is what parents do, on a whole range of issues, consciously and unconsciously, from smoking, drinking, bigotry and other socially undesirable traits. This line of argument also tends to trivialize physical and sexual abuse (which may also be religious in origin), which existing laws and law enforcement practice don't adequately address.

I think any actions you take or talk about on a public website should be grounded in realism and the political principles you presumably respect.