Religion in Schools

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not if the atheist in question is Richard Dawkins. Or Christopher Hitchens (pre-cancer). The visceral hatred they have expressed for religious believers is no different from the hate speech in extremist mosques.

Umm,,

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not if the atheist in question is Richard Dawkins. Or Christopher Hitchens (pre-cancer). The visceral hatred they have expressed for religious believers is no different from the hate speech in extremist mosques.

Have you any examples of Dawkins 'visceral hatred' directed at religious believers?

I've read a few of his books, and hatred isn't a word i'd associate with him. Disdain or contempt maybe.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Have you any examples of Dawkins 'visceral hatred' directed at religious believers?

I've read a few of his books, and hatred isn't a word i'd associate with him. Disdain or contempt maybe.

I think "Religion is a form of child abuse" (very common quote) goes rather a bit further than disdain or contempt, don't you?

Or, "With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns." (on RichardDawkins.net)

Or the following in the Washington Post:

"Educated apologist, how dare you weep Christian tears, when your entire theology is one long celebration of suffering... You may weep for Haiti where Pat Robertson does not, but at least, in his hick, sub-Palinesque ignorance, he holds up an honest mirror to the ugliness of Christian theology. You are nothing but a whited sepulchre." (Jan 25, 2010)

Besides, how far is disdain or contempt from hatred? Especially when it is directed towards a whole class of fellow-human beings? For instance, should disdain or contempt be so casually pushed aside if it were directed by a white man towards Blacks or Latinos in general? Or a 19th century European Christian towards Jews?

Originally posted by gtbiking4life
How is it virtually a logical contradiction? You may want to explain yourself better then. I love Science and I am also a reasonable person. You can have faith and love Science as well as be reasonable. It is not a logical contradiction at all.

What is your definition of a Creationist?

“…You can have faith and love Science AS WELL as be reasonable….” (my emphasis)

The “AS WELL” above implies that being reasonable and accepting science are two different things.
Science is not about “faith and love” but simply going wherever the evidence and unflawed logic takes you.
If you have “faith” in science then you don’t understand science. You can “love” science but science doesn’t you’re your “love”, it just needs evidence and reason.
So I think you got that statement a bit mixed up. It should be something like:

“you can be reasonable by accepting science AS WELL as have faith and love”



“…What is your definition of a Creationist?...”

The is no exact formal definition that I am aware of but I take Creationism to generally mean the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being and the theory of evolution is false.

“…It is not a logical contradiction at all….”

What is not a logical contradiction? If you are referring to the statement “You can have faith and love Science as well as be reasonable.” Then that is a logical contradiction because you do not need “faith” in science and if you think you do then that would not be a “reasonable” belief of yours.

But if you are talking about creationism as I defined it above then it would be a logical contradiction to have THAT religious faith AND to NOT be delusional because to reject the vast mountain of evidence of science that shows evolution to be true.

But if you are NOT talking about creationism as I defined it above but, never-a-less, a religion, then it would probably not necessarily be a clear logical contradiction to have THAT religious faith and to NOT be delusional although it would depend on exactly what you DO believe and it may be a near-logical contradiction by being strangely inconsistent.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I think "Religion is a form of child abuse" (very common quote) goes rather a bit further than disdain or contempt, don't you?

Or, "With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientolog ...[text shortened]... towards Blacks or Latinos in general? Or a 19th century European Christian towards Jews?

The 'teaching religion to children is child abuse' quote can hardly be called visceral when he goes into great lengths as to justify his reasoning behind it? A.C Grayling makes exactly the same case and strangely no one ever complains about him.

should disdain or contempt be so casually pushed aside if it were directed by a white man towards Blacks or Latinos in general?

But there's a distinct difference bewteen someone's religious beliefs and their race. I am an atheist, but i could wake up tomorrow and decide to be of any religious persuasion i so decide. I can't wake up tomorrow and change ethnicity to be Black or Asian. One is a belief system, the other is biologically determined by our genes.

I view disdain or contempt directed at someones beliefs as 'fair game', we routinely do so in politics and no one batters an eyelid, so why should religious beliefs be any different? Disdain or contempt directed at something somebody doesn't have a choice in ie. Race, gender, sexuality is completely different, in my view anyhow.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The 'teaching religion to children is child abuse' quote can hardly be called visceral when he goes into great lengths as to justify his reasoning behind it? A.C Grayling makes exactly the same case and strangely no one ever complains about him.

[b]should disdain or contempt be so casually pushed aside if it were directed by a white man towards have a choice in ie. Race, gender, sexuality is completely different, in my view anyhow.[/b]

(As a matter of fact, theists do complain about Grayling but since he is not that well-known in the mainstream it doesn't figure outside philosophy circles.)

Regarding the main point you raise, I would question whether Dawkins's quotes above express disdain/contempt (and I do believe that they reflect something much stronger than mere contempt - particularly the "child abuse" quote) regarding beliefs rather than persons. With the second and third quotes, they appear to be directly targeted at persons. Is contempt for a person ever a reasonable response? Emotions like disdain, contempt, disgust, hatred etc. cannot originate in objective empirical observations of the Universe or rational first principles - they are by definition irrational in origin.

(Interestingly the principle you used in the last paragraph is what defenders of anti-gay legislation have used in the past to justify discrimination against active gays - they are penalising choice or conduct rather than status or class. The Supreme Court of the US refused to make that distinction. Would you?)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
From reading the above posts it has become apparent that the teachers role becomes crucial. The teacher has to leave their own opinions out of teaching the curriculum. As a parent I would rather an athiest teach my kids than a theist. Less emotion.

Are you sure that's what you want? I've taught philosophy to elementary school kids, to gifted junior-high kids, to poor and troubled kids at an alternative high-school, and to disaffected, privileged college kids. When I am passionate and engaged, they become curious and interested. When I present just the facts, the reasons and the arguments, they memorize and regurgitate. I don't think emotion is the problem. Being unclear about the grounds for assessment of student performance is a problem. Being inconsistent in the application of standards is a problem. Being rigid and intolerant of challenges is a problem. But I have seen ideological teachers from across the political and religious spectra make these sorts of mistakes.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I think "Religion is a form of child abuse" (very common quote) goes rather a bit further than disdain or contempt, don't you?

Or, "With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientolog towards Blacks or Latinos in general? Or a 19th century European Christian towards Jews?

I wouldn't describe any of those quotes as "visceral hatred". And most of them are directed at practices rather than people, whereas you said ".. for religious believers".

I hate the practice of lying to children, but I do not therefore hate all parents.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I wouldn't describe any of those quotes as "visceral hatred". And most of them are directed at practices rather than people, whereas you said ".. for religious believers".

I hate the practice of lying to children, but I do not therefore hate all parents.

I think the last two are definitely directed towards persons rather than beliefs, but we may not agree on this. Again the question of whether they are "visceral hatred" or coolly intellectual disdain (or something in between) may be a judgement call.

Originally posted by bbarr
Are you sure that's what you want? I've taught philosophy to elementary school kids, to gifted junior-high kids, to poor and troubled kids at an alternative high-school, and to disaffected, privileged college kids. When I am passionate and engaged, they become curious and interested. When I present just the facts, the reasons and the arguments, they memorize ...[text shortened]... ogical teachers from across the political and religious spectra make these sorts of mistakes.

I'm sure I would like teachers to teach tthe curriculum rather than let their own opinions lead the way. Even then , with religous education...well lets just say I'm glad its optional.
Perhaps I'm being overreactive,but hey, I've got enough "christian scars" to know I should at least be cautious...

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I'm sure I would like teachers to teach tthe curriculum rather than let their own opinions lead the way. Even then , with religous education...well lets just say I'm glad its optional.
Perhaps I'm being overreactive,but hey, I've got enough "christian scars" to know I should at least be cautious...

A much more pressing concern in Australia is not about religious education but the history wars.

Originally posted by Conrau K
A much more pressing concern in Australia is not about religious education but the history wars.

Sure thing. Care to elaborate briefly on the "history wars"?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Sure thing. Care to elaborate briefly on the "history wars"?

The history wars refers to the debate about how Australian history should be taught in schools. The Howard government in its last term changed the curriculum to ensure greater emphasis on national history but there was heated debate about how to interpret this history. Historians like Professor Robert Manne are very big on teaching the abuses of Aborigines and the whole dark side of Australian history, whereas academics like Keith Windschuttle believe it should more positively present the accomplishments of the colonial period. This is really ideological territory and a much more pressing issue in schools than religious education.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
(As a matter of fact, theists do complain about Grayling but since he is not that well-known in the mainstream it doesn't figure outside philosophy circles.)

Regarding the main point you raise, I would question whether Dawkins's quotes above express disdain/contempt (and I do believe that they reflect something much stronger than mere contempt - pa ...[text shortened]... n status or class. The Supreme Court of the US refused to make that distinction. Would you?)

I think we're going to have to respectfully 'agree to disagree'.

I think hatred is too strong a word, and i don't think you can label them visceral. but then again if we all agreed on everything, what a boring wolrd it would be.

As for your final point, i realised as i was typing how it could be interpreted. But i stand by my assertion that religious beliefs are a matter of choice, sexual preference isn't.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I think the last two are definitely directed towards persons rather than beliefs, but we may not agree on this.

They are directed at neither. They are directed at practices. The first is directed at the practice of nuns taking advantage of young minds' gullibility, and the second at the practice of posing as an 'educated apologist' whilst being self contradictory and hypocritical.

Again the question of whether they are "visceral hatred" or coolly intellectual disdain (or something in between) may be a judgement call.
You compared it to the hate speech in extremist mosques. I personally would describe myself as hating many religious practices by Christians both past and present, I also hate many Christians, past and present and would if given the appropriate forum happily voice my hatred. But I would in no way equate that with 'hate speech in extremist mosques'. I wouldn't even call it 'hate speech'. There is a vast difference between criticizing or even expressing hatred for particular figures or practices and directing hatred at an entire religion, race or citizens of a country.

For example, if I expressed my hatred of our former president Chiluba who was found guilty of stealing millions of dollars from the country, including moneys meant for AIDS medicines thus causing the deaths of thousands to both AIDS and poverty, would I be guilty of hate speech and would you compare me to the Imam's in question? If so, then maybe I should be speaking in support of the extremists in mosques.
In many ways, criticism against America or Israel may be perfectly justified, it is how those criticisms are expressed, to whom it is addressed and the suggested responses that are made that matter. If Richard Dawkins had called for an intifada on nuns, then you might have a point.

PS. Chiluba also declared Zambia a "Christian Nation" for political reasons.