Utter Barkwits

[Paul McKeown]

Has anyone else heard of this Pastor Mike Stahl, who wants a "Christian National Registry of Atheists", complete with up to date contact details. Apparently he compares atheists with child rapists and terrorists and exhorts his followers to take appropriate action.

Creepy stuff.

The Canadians and Mexicans must have secretly been pouring psychoactives into American water supplies for decades.

[Nick Thomas]

Perhaps we may actually know some. In which case we could begin to witness to them and warn them of the dangers of atheism. Or perhaps they are radical atheists , whose hearts are as hard as Pharaoh’s , in that case , if they are business owners , we would encourage all our Christian friends , as well as the various churches and their congregations NOT to patronize them as we would only be “feeding” Satan

What's wrong with with this perfectly reasonable slice of advise from ex police officer Mike

stahl.jpg

[Robert Dale]

Every religion, unfortunately, has its lunatic fringe.

I have never heard of this man (I am a Christian pastor), and had difficulty even finding his so called "internet church" - it appears just to be a personal blog. Unfortunately people like that get all the publicity, as if they represented mainstream Christianity.

"Pastor Mike" doesn't have a monopoly on offensive comparisons with child abuse, though - I seem to recall Richard Dawkins accuses Christians of child abuse if they teach their children about religion.

[Nick Thomas]

"Pastor Mike" doesn't have a monopoly on offensive comparisons with child abuse, though - I seem to recall Richard Dawkins accuses Christians of child abuse if they teach their children about religion.

I'm amazed you say this. Please point me in the direction of the evidence as I was under the impression that Dawkins was in favour of educating children about religion. I assume you are not getting confused with his dislike for the labelling of children with a particular religion or his revulsion at the particularly but not exclusively Catholic habit of telling children that they could end up in hell and damnation.

[Ian Kingston]

"Pastor Mike" doesn't have a monopoly on offensive comparisons with child abuse, though - I seem to recall Richard Dawkins accuses Christians of child abuse if they teach their children about religion.

Not exactly. In The God Delusion Dawkins has much to say about the systematic physical and mental abuse of children by all religions, from ritual sacrifice by the Incas to the institutional paedophilia of the Roman Catholic church. However, it's not teaching children about religion that he sees as child abuse, but indoctrinating them into one religion and teaching them that religious faith is a virtue (and his lead-in to that is an example from Islam). I won't attempt to summarise all that he says here - The God Delusion is worth reading whether or not one is religious, but I find that most of Dawkins' critics have not read the book at all.

[Robert Dale]

Not exactly. In The God Delusion Dawkins has much to say about the systematic physical and mental abuse of children by all religions, from ritual sacrifice by the Incas to the institutional paedophilia of the Roman Catholic church. However, it's not teaching children about religion that he sees as child abuse, but indoctrinating them into one religion and teaching them that religious faith is a virtue (and his lead-in to that is an example from Islam). I won't attempt to summarise all that he says here - The God Delusion is worth reading whether or not one is religious, but I find that most of Dawkins' critics have not read the book at all.

I was a little careless in my wording - Dawkins is not, of course, opposed to children being taught about religion. His desire, however, is quite clearly that children should be shown that religion is nonsense (that is, to impose his belief). I quote from The God Delusion (which I have read), "Let children learn about different religions, let them notice their incompatibility, and let them draw their own conclusions about the consequences of that incompatibility." (Actually, logically, it does not follow that all religions are wrong - but that is another debate!)

My point, however, was the use of provocative language. The title of Dawkins' chapter on the subject sums it up - "Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion". He quotes extreme examples (which I would not seek to defend), but the implication is that if I, as a parent, share with my child my own deeply held beliefs, I am guilty of child abuse.

I think I can confidently say that neither of my children (now 25 and 21, still following the Christian faith in their own independent way) feels "abused".

[Nick Thomas]

.........Dawkins is not, of course, opposed to children being taught about religion. His desire, however, is quite clearly that children should be shown that religion is nonsense (that is, to impose his belief). I quote from The God Delusion (which I have read), "Let children learn about different religions, let them notice their incompatibility, and let them draw their own conclusions about the consequences of that incompatibility......."

.......He quotes extreme examples (which I would not seek to defend), but the implication is that if I, as a parent, share with my child my own deeply held beliefs, I am guilty of child abuse.......

Dawkins desire is that children should be educated, taught how to think critically and then left to make their own decision "draw their own conclusions".

"but the implication is..." - Where did this come from? I honestly feel that you have grossly misunderstood him and would suggest that you revisit the book.

[Ian Kingston]

His desire, however, is quite clearly that children should be shown that religion is nonsense (that is, to impose his belief).

Not 'be shown', because that would be to accept an argument from authority, which is something that religion relies on. Instead, children (anyone, actually) should reach their own conclusions about what is true based on an examination of the evidence. One of the best places to start, ironically, is with a critical reading of the Bible (or whatever holy book is relevant).

...the implication is that if I, as a parent, share with my child my own deeply held beliefs, I am guilty of child abuse.

I don't think he goes that far. The problem is that at the fundamentalist end of the religious spectrum, children are denied access to any ideas other than those of their parents and (when it comes to certain areas of science) simply lied to. This is the child abuse to which Dawkins refers.