I could not help but note two objections to the article by commentators,
Why is Richard Dawkins described as an 'infamous' atheist?...
What do you mean by describing Professor Dawkins as "the infamous athiest [sic] and scientist," Mr Dent [sic]? Why, "Infamous" exactly? Betraying some prejudice of your own, perchance?
How is that even a question?
Well, let us get to the rather short article and see if we may discern a reason or two:
Some faith schools constitute an act of child abuse because of the way they rid children of freedom, Professor Richard Dawkins has said.
Speaking at a fringe meeting at the Liberal Democrat Conference in Bournemouth, the famous atheist and scientist told delegates that it was unacceptable to indoctrinate children into any religion or belief system.
"I'm in favour of religious education," he said, responding to a question from the audience.
"I'm in favour of children learning about religion and its role in history.
"What I'm passionately against is indoctrination. That is wicked, that is evil, that is child abuse," he continued.
"You would never describe a child as a Keynesian child, but we all ascribe to this anomaly where religion can be hung round the neck of a child."
Professor Dawkins was promoting his new book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, at an event organised by the British Humanist Association (BHA).
To the interested reader: I commented on The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolutionhere.
I have dissected, discredited and corrected various such notions as those expressed by Richard Dawkins in the article various times and in various ways; please see the section, Atheist Child Rearing
But did I miss something?
The article does not refer to Richard Dawkins as "infamous" but as "famous."
Do not get me wrong, having some form of (self-diagnosed) dyslexia I can understand one person reading "infamous" for "famous." I can even understand two people doing it.
But what I cannot understand—and I quoted the entirety of both comments—is that if one refers to Richard Dawkins as "infamous" then my oh my, it is the makings of outrage, it is prejudice!
Yet, Richard Dawkins referring to religious schools as wicked, evil and child abuse is simply erudite elucidations.
As I have demonstrated time and time again that:
1) Richard Dawkins does not seem to consider that referring to children by their parent’s religion is a cultural phenomena and not a theological one.
2) That therefore, religions have specific ceremonies for the child turn adolescent or adult makes their own decision to actually become part of the religion.
3) That Richard Dawkins asks whether there is “something to be said for society stepping in”1 to stop you from raising your children according to your faith.
4) Lastly, that his ultimate goal is not merely the liberation of children from those wicked, evil and child abusing schools and parent but that his interference “might lead children to choose no religion at all.”2
So go on and be the human shield in front of Richard Dawkins, even when nothing was fired at him except your own misreading, and express all of the outrage that you wish. But in the meanwhile more and more sensible atheists are shunning the New Belligerent Atheists.
1. Gary Wolf, “The Church of the Non-Believers,” Wired Magazine (found here and here
It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any
print media for whatever purpose (in agreement or in order to criticize it) only as
long as the following conditions are met: