Teach Your Children Well... Well, Just Teach Them What We Tell You To Teach Them

It is difficult to decide whether the new atheism (a term used in common parlance) is refreshing, terrifying, or both. I suppose that it is refreshing because atheist have come right out and exploited every possible form of media in order to push their agenda. Their message is clear and the same as always: they are right and everyone else is wrong.
On the other hand, as we point out and demonstrate in our essay Randi the Amazing Atheist, in certain disagreements such as the atheism theism polemic some people can only sustain a pleasant and intellectual facade for a short amount of time only to have their honest and emotionally spiked belligerence surface. The new atheists see no need to tone down the rhetoric since they represent the one true world-view and they are, after all, jousting with theists who are simpletons, superstitious and ignorant.

One time atheist, and later Christian scholar, C. S. Lewis wrote:

If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view."1

I have already demonstrated that some atheists claim that atheism is holier than theism. Is it any surprise that atheism is attempting to infiltrate our homes, our families, our parental duties, our very children? Let us see what they have to say for themselves:
Daniel Dennett wrote:

On the one hand, many declare, there is the sacred and inviolable right of life…On the other hand, many of the same people declare that, once born, the child loses its right not to be indoctrinated or brainwashed or otherwise psychologically abused by those parent, who have the right to raise the child with any upbringing they choose, short of physical torture, Let us spread the value of freedom throughout the world-but not to children, apparently.2

From Gary Wolf's interview with Richard Dawkins:

“How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?” Dawkins asks. “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? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?”3

In his article Now Here's a Bright Idea Richard Dawkins wrote:

A phrase like “Catholic child” or “Muslim child” should clang furious bells of protest in the mind…Children are too young to know their religious opinions. Just as you can't vote until you are 18, you should be free to choose your own cosmology and ethics without society's impertinent presumption that you will automatically inherit those of your parents. We'd be aghast to be told of a Leninist child or a neo-conservative child or a Hayekian monetarist child. So isn't it a kind of child-abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child? Especially in Northern Ireland and Glasgow, where such labels, handed down over generations, have divided neighborhoods for centuries and can even amount to a death warrant?
Catholic child? Flinch.
Protestant child? Squirm.
Muslim child? Shudder.
Everybody's consciousness should be raised to this level…children should hear themselves described not as “Christian children” but as “children of Christian parents.” This in itself would raise their consciousness, empower them to make up their own minds and choose which religion, if any, they favour, rather than just assume that religion means “same beliefs as parents”. I could well imagine that this linguistically coded freedom to choose might lead children to choose no religion at all. Please go out and work at raising people's consciousness over the words they use to describe children.

Please do not think that this is merely an intellectual exercise. I have personally had the displeasure of having an atheist accuse me of brainwash and abuse my children. Actually, they made quite an odd statement, they made their statement thusly: you abuse your kids, but I'm not going to call the authorities. Very odd indeed. I, employing a perfectly calm and rational demeanor, invited them to report me to the authorities. I asked them to consider what sort of person they were since they know that children are being abused but they refuse to do anything about it. Such is the disconnect between an idea that seems good when you are discussing it with people with whom you agree and actually attempting to implement such an idea.

Atheists, the belligerent activist sort, do not seem to understand, or do not seem to consider, or do not seem to mention out of fear of discrediting their own arguments, that theists, in this case we will speak specifically of Christians, agree with much of their criticisms of "religion." And Christians do so by appealing to absolute Biblical morals and not, as atheists do, fallaciously by speaking out of situational style ethics that they employ in order to do the work of besmirching and do so by borrowing from theistic moral systems. In this particular instance we will comment on the issue of referring to children by their parents religion. This issue is not as simple as it is made to seem. For instance, Jewish parents have Jewish children because Judaism is more than a religion, it is a people group. Roman Catholicism and Islam have a strong sense of their religion also being their culture. Atheists may fallaciously suppose that their children are natural born atheists.

But what about good old fashioned Bible believing fundamentalist orthodox Christians. I am afraid that here I must be somewhat subjective and speak of that which I know well: the personal experience of myself and those who are close to me. In my circles being called "religious" is tantamount to a put down. This is because we know what "religion" is like and that it is a major factor in people not coming to know God personally. When people think that the way to please God is to jump through the hoops of ritual and to conduct a sacramental song and dance they are missing the point. No atheist could ever come close to being as anti-religion as the Bible.
Here are some examples:

"This people draws near with words only and honors me with their lips alone, though their hearts are far from me, and their reverence for me has become routine observances of the precepts of men" (Isaiah 29:13, Jesus quotes this verse in Matthew 15:8).

"Has the LORD [as] [great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, [And] to heed than the fat of rams" (1st Samuel 15:22).

"'To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?' Says the LORD. 'I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams. And the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, Or of lambs or goats…Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies-I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting…Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow.' 'Come now, and let us reason together,' Says the LORD" (see Isaiah 1:11-18).

"For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6, also see 2:11 & 4:6).

The sort of believer that we are discussing here would never imagine that their children are Christians, that they are believers and would most certainly never refer to them as such. No one is born a Christian because becoming a Christian requires a decision therefore, Jesus refers to being born again (John ch. 3).
This sort, following the teaching of the New Testament, would not baptize their children since getting wet has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sin. When baptism is correlated with salvation in the New Testament it is made very clear that the issue is not getting wet and thereby cleaning your flesh but it is a conscience decision, one which an infant obviously cannot make.

"There is also an antitype which now saves us-baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1st Peter 3:21)

This is why denominations that baptize infant have someone speak for the infant by proxy. Logically fallacious as it is it does demonstrate that they see the problem but rather than give up their traditions they have attempted to create a loop-hole. The bottom line in all New Testament passages regarding baptism is succinctly summarized in Acts 18:8 which states:

"Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized."

Why where they baptized? Because they heard, they believed and only then were they baptized. If they could not hear and understand enough to believe then they could not be baptized.

But the atheists that we have been discussing are not so much interested in such factual and logical superficialities. What they oppose is that, for instance, even if your children are baptized in their early or late teens when they would be fully capable of understanding and explaining what they are doing it would be presupposed that they are doing so because their parents have been brainwashing/abusing them all along. We must also empathies with even the most belligerent atheists for the fact that there certainly is much brainwashing/abusing rightly associated with "religion."

But will these atheists establish 1-800 hotline numbers for children to inform on their parents for the crime against the new secular world order? One can only wonder how these atheists conceive of enforcing such Gestapo-like tactics.

And what religions will Daniel Dennett propose be taught in public schools? Surely, all of them would only be fair from Swedenborgism to J. R. Bob Dobbs' might Church of the Subgenius—who offer eternal salvation or triple your money back.
I recall hearing a certain New York city radio personality who also proposed that religion be taught in public school but only the inclusive ones-any religion that was exclusivist would be, you guessed it, excluded. Atheist Nica Lalli has attempted to lay out her particular atheist ideas of what ecumenism would look like:

I am more interested in dialogue, and I hope that conversation will get us to respect and understanding. I cannot see dialogue happening with someone who tells you that your core beliefs are wrong, so I refrain from telling anyone what to believe…With that in mind, let's invite more of everyone to participate in the discussion…Once we start, we might see that we have more in common than we all think. Once we all agree to disagree, one we set the rules that no side is trying to convince the other of its rightness or wrongness, once we clarify that we are simply trying to understand each other - and then move on to other topics of common interest - then the conversation about religion and its place in our society can really begin.4

Nica Lalli's article is entitled "Atheists don't speak with just one voice" and agrees with some of the points that we have made is our essay Atheism's Sects. Note that this particular, and peculiar, brand of ecumenism which claims to include "more of everyone" would exclude by its "rules" anyone who is "is trying to convince the other of its rightness or wrongness."

But why confine one's criticism and allegations of brainwashing and child abuse to religion?

What about raising children as carnivores? This forceful action robs them of the choice to be a vegetarian (vegan or lacto-ovo). But then again raising them as vegetarians would rob them of the choice to be a carnivore. Perhaps we should not feed children anything until there are old enough to make their own informed choice.

What about nationality? What right do parents have to force their children to grow up in a particular country, region, climate, culture?

What about language? How dare any parent force their children to speak a language just because its parents speak it? Perhaps children should have their ears plugged until they are old enough to decide what language(s) they want to learn.
Interestingly, Prof. Richard Dawkins "describes the British-born headteacher [of an ultra-orthodox Jewish school] Rabbi Gluck's Yiddish accent as testament to the isolation of his community."5 Although the point seems to be that the Rabbi speaks with a Yiddish accent in the midst of English/British speakers Prof. Dawkins (who speaks with a heavy British accent that demonstrates his isolation on the other side of the pond) seems to overlook the fact that every single person who speaks any language speaks with an accent.

What about morals? Surely, only a brainwasher would teach a child that anything is right and wrong. Who are we to impose that on our children?

And how about simple etiquette? How could we possibly shove down our children's throats that they should say excuse me after flatulating? Isn't the expulsion of gastric fumes a compliment in some cultures?

What of gender? Just because of an evolutionary accident, and X instead of a Y chromosome or visa versa, a child should be forced to grow up as a boy or girl. We should place them into surgery directly after birth (or genetically manipulate them before) in order to make them androgynous, or perhaps hermaphrodites or androgynous hermaphrodites until such time as they can choose their own gender.

What about handism? Should poor little children be forced by their parents (and a genetic accident) to be right or left handed? Perhaps they should all be forced to be ambidextrous but then again they may not want to be. Perhaps we ought to bind their hands (ala Chinese women's feet) but they may not want that either.

Maybe children should be exposed to all ideas, although this will not happen, "all" meaning "all." Maybe they should not exposed to any ideas until they decide what they want to be exposed to, but how will they do that?

It appears that there is still a long way to go towards realizing the dream of placing an atheist Big Brother in every home.

1. 1. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1960), p. 29
2. 2. Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Penguin Group, 2006), p. 326
3. 3. Wired Magazine online: Gary Wolf, The Church of the Non-Believers (found here and here)
4. 4. Nica Lalli, "Atheists don't speak with just one voice," USA TODAY, The Forum, Monday, October 8, 2007, 13A
5. 5. British channel4.com reviewing The Root of All Evil? Part 2: The Virus of Faith