So Neo, did you know that Atheism is a religion?

[MrJonno]

Not a big fan of most rap music can I get charitable religious status for that (I like a few songs so does that make me too liberal to be a religion)

[Svartalf]

I believe we have run out of coffee that a religion as well now ?

Dunno, but I take my coffee more religiously than the eucharist... maybe if the laity could get communion through both species and they used decent wine?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, he is dissembling, is he? Sure, sure. He is dissembling like he's dead. "The late Daniel Dennett" indeed.

Oh golly, that was my bad, I was thinking of Hitchens and writing about Dennett.

I have such a hard time keeping track of all these radical religious Atheists, they all sound and look alike to me.

Sorry Mr. Dennett.

Lack of discrimination show like of information. You don't read these guys, you just mine their works for quotes. Adamant refusal to learn, so typical of your kind.

[camoguard]

I would like to vote this thread down. What started out as a potentially interesting topic has broadened to include larger motives within atheism. Those motives are a separate topic. I think they should be rolled away like Easter gravestones and we can argue about their existence elsewhere.

None of the argument about destroying religion or being anti religion or being less rational than the Inquisition makes atheism a religion. And that concludes my complaint with the quality reduction the thread has taken.

Below this line lies most of my last relevant post which I am reposting by request for Seth. It's located at http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 80#p834898 for everyone who can use such a link. The missing elements are the portions where I quoted from Seth and linked to his post to which I was responding.

If we're going to say what atheism correlates with or what atheism can be then we've got a speculative conversation that spins in circles. Do we want atheism to qualify for a religion is probably a good question to determine some biases. And the reason that's relevant is that if I can show that atheism is possible to have without a religion, I think I've won the point that atheism isn't sufficient to determine if a religion is being used. But then I expect you'll make the point that atheism can be used as a religion. I think that's also true. There are two kinds of atheism at minimum now and they relate at the no gods point but I think one of them is not a religion. I'm going to focus on the kind of atheism that I think would not count as a religion.

"Undoing a change is a change." True. At that granularity, I'm in agreement. When we talk about the belief in no gods, I'm guilty of a lack of precision. What if I said my belief is in the material world. It sounds like a belief but I think it plays differently and closer to what I'm attempting to say. If I walk into a room and list the contents of the room, it won't include a god. And if I do include a god, you can ask "where" and I won't be able to demonstrate it. I think that's a fair assumption. But for you to say I am committed to the idea that something I can't perceive isn't present, then I would like to object.

Things that I can't perceive can exist. However, on the basis of what I think is good logic, I cannot operate as if I know the things I can't perceive do exist. What I intend when I slap the atheist adjective on myself is that a Christian will ask me why atheists gather because atheists don't have prayer, rituals et cetera. They are thus acknowledging the asymmetry which uncovers that there is something categorically different in the quality of what we would collectively agree are beliefs. Atheists gather as atheists but then act as people. It's like there's no gay marriage unless you'd like to discuss a special category of marriage that only includes same sex coupling. To me "atheism" is a retronym that I use as a shorthand because I'm lazy. I don't have a religion. I have a passionate belief that people can operate without guessing that there is a god. I wouldn't at all be an atheist if one were spotted. I'm not really holding a belief that there is no god so much as a belief that the current religions are mistaken by virtue of faulty principles.

You used the word deconstruction and I think that nearly hits the nail on the head. A lack of beliefs may seem like a belief but dropping traditions isn't a tradition. You may see it as the belief analogy. I see it as the tradition analogy.

[Coito ergo sum]

For very good and rational reasons: Radical Atheists wish to destroy their right to practice their delusions.

More delusions.

Hardly. It's about the only well-founded rational fear they have. One can argue endlessly over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether one group is going to Heaven and another to Hell, but there's no doubt that there is a well-established secular legal attack on religious rights in the U.S. and Europe. France just banned the head scarf for strictly anti-religious socialist reasons. Dawkins would make it a crime for them to pass on their religious beliefs to their children.

Generally speaking, in the US, the battle is against the "right" of the religious to either impose their beliefs on others or maintain a primacy over other beliefs.[/quote]

Nonsense.

Err. No. That's what the battle is about. State, federal and local governments funding religious institutions - government prayers at city council meetings - organized prayers in schools. These are impositions of religion on the unwilling. If someone wants to pray, or say grace, at school, or hold a meeting of a church group on school property when the school is open to non-religious groups, they can, and they do.

The atheists are battling for equal rights at the moment,

What rights do they not enjoy equally with religionists? I presume you are alluding to their putative "right" to be free from experiencing or observing the free exercise of religion by others. Well, here's a clue: They have no such right.

The right to be free from having religion thrust upon them by the State - violations of the establishment clause. The right not to have State and local funds used for religious purposes (i.e. many states have "no aid" clauses pursuant to which public funds are not to be used to aid religious groups).

I'm not suggesting a right to be free from the free exercise of religion by others. I'm suggesting a right to be free from religious groups using the public/government dime and enlisting aid of government machinery to support, encourage, foster, preserve and protect their particular religion to the exclusion of other religions and non-religion. There is such a right.

and are hardly concerned with limiting the rights of religious folk,

Sorry, they are constantly interfering or attempting to interfere with the rights of religious folk because they are intolerant gits who think that they have some right to freedom FROM religion, which isn't the case.

There is a right to be free from government sponsored, endorsed, and encouraged religion.

And, the burka ban in France was to protect women, not harm religion.

And you believe that shit? It was instituted over the OBJECTIONS of Islamic women, a number of whom have been arrested for defying the ban.

Over the objections of some Islamic women, yes. A burka ban wouldn't work in the US, unless it was a neutral rule like banning the wearing of masks of any kind, not just religious ones.

[MrJonno]

Over the objections of some Islamic women, yes. A burka ban wouldn't work in the US, unless it was a neutral rule like banning the wearing of masks of any kind, not just religious ones.

Which is what the laws is in France, no covering the face unless for entertainment or safety reasons in public,. There is no mention of burqa or religion in it

[Hermit]

Oh, he is dissembling, is he? Sure, sure. He is dissembling like he's dead. "The late Daniel Dennett" indeed.

Oh golly, that was my bad, I was thinking of Hitchens...

...who isn't dead either.

[camoguard]

I've got a related subtopic that I hope can help us dial into if atheism is a religion or not.

Here is a definition of religion from an online dictionary with comments.

re·li·gion
   [ri-lij-uhn]
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

I think only two of the above definitions are useful for arguing what is or isn't a religion. Points 1 and 2. For point 1, you need a claim about the state of universe. AND I think you need a moral code of some sort. Otherwise, we muddy the water and people could draw the conclusion that environmentalists are literally religious. They are not. For point 2, if you think you are practicing a religion despite the lack of evidence that would support a point 1 definition, then you get a pass and you are practicing a religion. So environmentalists could apply to be a kind of religion and then that subset of environmentalists could be considered a religion.

But I think the two points work differently. Point 1 gives us an objective measure of a religion. Scientology is one, environmentalism isn't one. And right now the status of atheism is in question although we've all got opinions about where it stands. Point 2 gives us a subjective measure of religion. Individuals in most of our countries are afforded subjective religious freedom to act according to our conscience especially in terms of picking and choosing the rituals we would attend without being prevented by force.

Sorry to get long winded but the discussion of "is atheism a religion" should be separate from "should atheists be afforded equivalent protections for their personal conscience related decisions." And I think the U.S. case law has supported the idea that the religion that is protected is the individual and subjective kind which includes nonbelief and might include environmentalism for all we know. And I want to make sure I know which form of "religion" we're arguing for or against here.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh? when did atheists call for repeal or alteration of the first amendment?

Constantly, little by little, using the "Death of a Thousand Cuts" method. How many times has the ACLU sued to prevent any hint of religion in schools,

Never, actually. I'm not a big fan of the ACLU, but their position on free speech and religious freedom is right on. They haven't sued to prevent any hint of religion in schools, but they have sued to prevent religion from being IMPOSED on unwilling recipients.

They've done both. Atheists, supported by the ACLU, sued to prevent student-lead prayers in schools, and lost.

Which case? Generally these cases entail captive audiences. Let's look at the one you're talking about.

Where they are objecting to improper impositions of religion on people, I support them, but they too often seek to obstruct the free exercise of religion merely because it takes place on public property, which is a suppression of free exercise because public property belongs to the People, not the government, and they may use it as they please, within general and non-exclusive boundaries set by land managers who work for the government.

Please cite examples where atheists have prevented or tried to prevent religious people from privately expressing their religious views on public property. I know they have tried to stop publicly funded displays on public property, and rightly so. But, if you want to go to a park and shout about Jesus coming back soon, you have a First Amendment right to do it. Now, if you want to start constructing monuments on public property, well, nobody has a constitutional right to build a monument anywhere they want.

In other words, government may not prohibit religious practice or displays on public property to any greater degree than they may prohibit any practice, secular or religious, for reasons of proper management.

Which cases involved atheists trying to do that?

Normally, the cases involve the government fostering, endorsing, and/or paying for the religious practice or display.

even when it's not school-sponsored?

Example, please. Religious groups, for example, are permitted to wear t-shirts and jewelry depicting their views, absent a neutrally applied dress code/uniform. And, religious groups are allowed to meet on school grounds when other groups are also allowed to meet on school grounds.

And those exceptions have been carved out by the courts after atheists either objected to the practices or religionists were being discriminated against by school officials.

No, those exceptions were carved out after atheists successfully got official, school endorsed and sponsored, religious practices and displays properly booted. The courts noted and ruled that the establishment clause prohibits schools from preferring and sponsoring religious groups, but the free speech and free exercise clause requires private groups to be given equal access, even religious groups.

What cases are you referring to?

If you want to get into a case-cite war, I'll oblige, but not just now, I've got better things to do.

No. I just wanted an example of the multitude of cases you were talking about. Rather than just shoot from the hip, you might as well give an example of all these cases where atheists have shut down free exercise of religion, and not merely stopped improper government sponsorship, endorsement or preferences toward religion.

How many times have atheists sued to prevent the erection of Ten Commandments monuments in public parks?

I'm not sure. I know they've sued to prevent the erection of that religious monument in public buildings and courthouses, and rightly so.

And in public parks.

Let's look at the case. Why? Was it because the government was including a religious display but denying a non-religious display? Was it because the government was paying for the display?

The point is that in some cases, plaintiffs have objected to the mere presence of such monuments in public places not because they were erected using government money (they weren't), but on the basis that it creates a "hostile atmosphere" merely because the poor intolerant Atheist asshole feels excluded because other people are freely exercising their religion.

Example?

How many times have atheist abused zoning laws to exclude churches and religious gatherings?

You tell us. I think hardly ever, if ever. Most towns are run by non-atheists, and religious folk. Churches are not being excluded.

Yes, they are, and were, from very early in our national history. Zoning law, as a concept, was based in both racism and anti-religious sentiment, primarily against Catholics and Jews in New York City.

In other words by one religious group (Protestants) to oust other religious groups, Catholics and Jews.

Here's a list of RLUIPA cases, many of which are explicitly about government improperly burdening religious exercise through zoning.
Congress, when it enacted the prior law, and repeated when it enacted RLUIPA, found that there was pervasive, widespread discrimination against religion in land use regulation.

Those burdens are imposed by one religious group on another. It's the rare city in the US is that is being run by extremist atheists. Atheists make up about 1 or 2 % of the population of the country, and extremist atheists a much lower percentage than that.

I'll answer that one: Often enough that Congress was compelled to write a federal law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, just to put a stop to the widespread and pervasive abuse of exclusive zoning laws to oppress and suppress religion.

It goes on and on.

You'll need to provide examples.

Done.

Didn't. Your link cites Cutter v Wilkinson, which was not an effort by atheists or nonbelievers to stop religious folks from practicing their religion. It was an effort by the Ohio prison system to discriminate against the Satanist, Wicca, and Asatru religious adherents who brought the suit. Ohio was accommodating Christians and other "mainstream" religions but refusing to accommodate Satanists, Wiccans and Asatru adherents. They claimed that accommodating them was an undue burden and compromised prison safety. The State of Ohio argued that the federal law RLUIPA was unconstitutional as it violated States rights. The SCOTUS upheld RLUIPA.

You can't really claim that atheists and non-believers have the State of Ohio by the balls, and are enacting rules to squelch religion, can you? What has happening in the Ohio prison system was that mainstream religious believers wanted to give the big fuck you to the outlying religious believers.

[Coito ergo sum]

Try this on for size. It's the late Daniel Dennett expounding his nefarious plan to extirpate religion entirely:

Tufts University Free Thought Society,

My proposal, a 4th “R”

This would be compulsory. And my idea is that it would cover history, creed, rituals, music, symbols, ethical commands and prohibitions. That's it. Just raw, tested, non-controversial facts that everybody can agree to about the world's religions and that should be a curriculum that starts in grade school goes into middle school and high school. Now, I believe as strongly as anybody in the principle freedom of religion, so notice that this in no way violates freedom of religion. As long as you teach your children this curriculum you can teach them anything else you want. Anything else you want provided it doesn't disable them from further informing themselves. So it honors the principle of freedom of religion.

Now I’ve been discussing this proposal since I put it in my book, for a year and a half now and I’ve had the support actually of a lot of even right wing Christian leaders. They say “this is great, this is great, yeah, we’re all for it.” But Dinesh is on record as opposing it. Here’s what he has to say, “Daniel Dennett urges that the schools teach religion as a purely natural phenomenon.” And then he goes on to say, “By this he means that religion should be taught as if it were untrue.”

That’s not what it means and I’ve never said that. And this is simply a misrepresentation by Dinesh. I expanded on my point on the blog on faith, which some of you may have seen, and I though that it was such an obvious implication that I put it in parentheses. I said, “Notice that the truth or falsity of any religious doctrines would not be included in the curriculum since not a single point of religious doctrine is agreed upon as straightforward fact by the world community.”

So Dinesh has misrepresented my position. And maybe that’s why he is opposed to it. I don’t know, maybe now that he understands it better he’ll be in agreement with it. We’ll see.

Now, my reason for this is not the reason he suggests, he thinks I’m trying to wipe out religion. On the contrary, it's my recommendation for how to preserve the best in religion and get rid of just the stuff that we all want to get rid of, the toxic stuff.

And it’s a rather simple argument. All religions have toxic versions. That is there are anti-social fanatical elements in every major religion, in Hinduism and Islam and the various kinds of Christianity and so forth. And as near as I can see, this isn’t a careful claim, I haven’t done direct research on it but combing the literature it seems to me pretty clear. All toxic versions depend on the enforced ignorance of the young. It's only by keeping your young people ignorant of other religions that you can preserve this. So my, my sort of public health measures say just don't permit that enforced ignorance to go on. By informing the young we inoculate them against toxic forms of religion.

And my understanding of this is as follows. A religion that can survive under this sort of free information deserves to survive, it's a benign form of religion, let it flourish. And a religion that can't survive without the enforced ignorance of the young deserves to go extinct. But I don’t know, maybe Dines disagrees with that, we’ll see.

He quotes me. This is something Dinesh does in his book. He quotes in a context of disparagement but you’re never quite sure if he agrees with what he’s quoting or not. “Parents,” He’s quoting me now, “Parents don’t literally own their children the way slave owners once owned slaves, but are, rather, their stewards and guardians and ought to be held accountable by outsiders for their guardianship, which does imply that outsiders have a right to interfere.”

I stick by that, I think that’s true. And I want to know, does he dissent from this statement. He presents it as if he disagrees, I’d like to know, does he actually dissent from this statement.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oG605U19fE

(emphasis added)

You'll note that he's lying through his teeth when he claims he doesn't want to destroy organized religion. He does. He's just dissembling and obfuscating to conceal his true intentions, which is "inoculation" of youth against ALL forms of religion, which, he hopes, will lead to the extirpation of religion.

Of course, his plan is entirely unconstitutional and he knows it, so he's just talking out his ass to pander to his audience, who loved it. But his idea is not remotely connected to constitutional law, it's entirely a radical religious Atheist's plan to eliminate religion from society by indoctrinating our youth using Atheist propaganda, just like the Marxists like to do.

P.S. I personally transcribed every word from the YouTube video for just such an occasion as this.

It's unconstitutional to have a class in school that teaches the "history, creed, rituals, music, symbols, ethical commands and prohibitions?" That sounds like "religious criticism" class, and would seem to be perfectly fine for being taught in schools. What he is saying is that if you taught such a class in school, the students would not be ignorant of the history, creed, rituals, music, symbols, ethical commands and prohibitions of various religions, and would then make reasonable choices.

In any case, I want organized religion wiped out, for sure. I wouldn't use law to do it, though. I think that over time, if human civilization survives, we will make another great leap forward. Like moving from burning witches to the Enlightenment. Hopefully, in the coming centuries we will collectively grow out of this nonsense.

[charlou]

I've got a related subtopic that I hope can help us dial into if atheism is a religion or not.

Here is a definition of religion from an online dictionary with comments.

re·li·gion
   [ri-lij-uhn]
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

I think only two of the above definitions are useful for arguing what is or isn't a religion. Points 1 and 2. For point 1, you need a claim about the state of universe. AND I think you need a moral code of some sort. Otherwise, we muddy the water and people could draw the conclusion that environmentalists are literally religious. They are not. For point 2, if you think you are practicing a religion despite the lack of evidence that would support a point 1 definition, then you get a pass and you are practicing a religion. So environmentalists could apply to be a kind of religion and then that subset of environmentalists could be considered a religion.

But I think the two points work differently. Point 1 gives us an objective measure of a religion. Scientology is one, environmentalism isn't one. And right now the status of atheism is in question although we've all got opinions about where it stands. Point 2 gives us a subjective measure of religion. Individuals in most of our countries are afforded subjective religious freedom to act according to our conscience especially in terms of picking and choosing the rituals we would attend without being prevented by force.

Sorry to get long winded but the discussion of "is atheism a religion" should be separate from "should atheists be afforded equivalent protections for their personal conscience related decisions." And I think the U.S. case law has supported the idea that the religion that is protected is the individual and subjective kind which includes nonbelief and might include environmentalism for all we know. And I want to make sure I know which form of "religion" we're arguing for or against here.

Yes! an interesting and important distinction ... But is a ritual, or a moral or ethical stance only worth protecting if it's considered a religion or to have a religious basis? Really?

[camoguard]

Yes! an interesting and important distinction ... But is a ritual, or a moral or ethical stance only worth protecting if it's considered a religion or to have a religious basis? Really?

Well you need a way to define a protection so that people understand the relationship between their choices and their rights. In my opinion, religion and morality got entwined and that entanglement is represented even in our laws and founding documents. Individual moral choices should be given the weight and respect just as religiously motivated moral choices are granted protections.

Of course, we want to balance our interest in protecting people's choices with the fact that businesses need to be able to hire people and have a sense that they'll generally work core hours. What I mean to say is that businesses and contracts shouldn't get screwed over just because someone gets a morality adjustment. I think the freedom from religion laws were invented specifically to protect minority religions and then nonbelief got shoehorned into those protections.

In my opinion, no sabbath should be respected collectively. Employers should work with their employees on a case by case basis and employees should be expected to make their personal "religious" holidays and practices clear and included in their personnel folder.

In my case, I'd block out days in which I needed to be available for my children. That matters to me more than religion or lack of one. And I think that value would drive me as far as faith in a personal savior drove anyone.

Edit:
I brought up the complaint about tangents recently and this is one. But the question that I didn't exactly ask is How would you propose we define our protections? That's actually a solid and tough question. I made a thread for it.

[Seth]

I've got a related subtopic that I hope can help us dial into if atheism is a religion or not.

Here is a definition of religion from an online dictionary with comments.

re·li·gion
   [ri-lij-uhn]
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

I think only two of the above definitions are useful for arguing what is or isn't a religion. Points 1 and 2.

Nice try, but you're committing the fallacy of hasty generalization.

The pertinent definition, and the one I have been using, is definition 6.

You wish to limit the scope of the discussion only to those definitions that support your preference that only "spiritual" or classically theistic religions fit and exclude the more general form defined by 6. But that's pettifoggery. You don't pick the definition and then see if the behavior fits within it, you observe the behavior and then see if one of the definitions fits.

And I think the U.S. case law has supported the idea that the religion that is protected is the individual and subjective kind which includes nonbelief and might include environmentalism for all we know. And I want to make sure I know which form of "religion" we're arguing for or against here.

We're arguing whether ANY definition of religion can be applied to ANY sort of atheistic belief and practice.

I can't even get most atheists to admit they hold a belief, so things go slowly.

[Seth]

Oh, he is dissembling, is he? Sure, sure. He is dissembling like he's dead. "The late Daniel Dennett" indeed.

Oh golly, that was my bad, I was thinking of Hitchens...

...who isn't dead either.

Well, fuck me. Two mistakes in a week. Highly unusual for me. My apologies to Mr. Hitchens as well.

My only excuse is I've been sick, 103 fever and everything. Not my best work, that. Still, just a one-word error this time.

[Seth]

Try this on for size. It's the late Daniel Dennett expounding his nefarious plan to extirpate religion entirely:

Tufts University Free Thought Society,

My proposal, a 4th “R”

This would be compulsory. And my idea is that it would cover history, creed, rituals, music, symbols, ethical commands and prohibitions. That's it. Just raw, tested, non-controversial facts that everybody can agree to about the world's religions and that should be a curriculum that starts in grade school goes into middle school and high school. Now, I believe as strongly as anybody in the principle freedom of religion, so notice that this in no way violates freedom of religion. As long as you teach your children this curriculum you can teach them anything else you want. Anything else you want provided it doesn't disable them from further informing themselves. So it honors the principle of freedom of religion.

Now I’ve been discussing this proposal since I put it in my book, for a year and a half now and I’ve had the support actually of a lot of even right wing Christian leaders. They say “this is great, this is great, yeah, we’re all for it.” But Dinesh is on record as opposing it. Here’s what he has to say, “Daniel Dennett urges that the schools teach religion as a purely natural phenomenon.” And then he goes on to say, “By this he means that religion should be taught as if it were untrue.”

That’s not what it means and I’ve never said that. And this is simply a misrepresentation by Dinesh. I expanded on my point on the blog on faith, which some of you may have seen, and I though that it was such an obvious implication that I put it in parentheses. I said, “Notice that the truth or falsity of any religious doctrines would not be included in the curriculum since not a single point of religious doctrine is agreed upon as straightforward fact by the world community.”

So Dinesh has misrepresented my position. And maybe that’s why he is opposed to it. I don’t know, maybe now that he understands it better he’ll be in agreement with it. We’ll see.

Now, my reason for this is not the reason he suggests, he thinks I’m trying to wipe out religion. On the contrary, it's my recommendation for how to preserve the best in religion and get rid of just the stuff that we all want to get rid of, the toxic stuff.

And it’s a rather simple argument. All religions have toxic versions. That is there are anti-social fanatical elements in every major religion, in Hinduism and Islam and the various kinds of Christianity and so forth. And as near as I can see, this isn’t a careful claim, I haven’t done direct research on it but combing the literature it seems to me pretty clear. All toxic versions depend on the enforced ignorance of the young. It's only by keeping your young people ignorant of other religions that you can preserve this. So my, my sort of public health measures say just don't permit that enforced ignorance to go on. By informing the young we inoculate them against toxic forms of religion.

And my understanding of this is as follows. A religion that can survive under this sort of free information deserves to survive, it's a benign form of religion, let it flourish. And a religion that can't survive without the enforced ignorance of the young deserves to go extinct. But I don’t know, maybe Dines disagrees with that, we’ll see.

He quotes me. This is something Dinesh does in his book. He quotes in a context of disparagement but you’re never quite sure if he agrees with what he’s quoting or not. “Parents,” He’s quoting me now, “Parents don’t literally own their children the way slave owners once owned slaves, but are, rather, their stewards and guardians and ought to be held accountable by outsiders for their guardianship, which does imply that outsiders have a right to interfere.”

I stick by that, I think that’s true. And I want to know, does he dissent from this statement. He presents it as if he disagrees, I’d like to know, does he actually dissent from this statement.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oG605U19fE

(emphasis added)

You'll note that he's lying through his teeth when he claims he doesn't want to destroy organized religion. He does. He's just dissembling and obfuscating to conceal his true intentions, which is "inoculation" of youth against ALL forms of religion, which, he hopes, will lead to the extirpation of religion.

Of course, his plan is entirely unconstitutional and he knows it, so he's just talking out his ass to pander to his audience, who loved it. But his idea is not remotely connected to constitutional law, it's entirely a radical religious Atheist's plan to eliminate religion from society by indoctrinating our youth using Atheist propaganda, just like the Marxists like to do.

P.S. I personally transcribed every word from the YouTube video for just such an occasion as this.

It's unconstitutional to have a class in school that teaches the "history, creed, rituals, music, symbols, ethical commands and prohibitions?"

It is when the intent of the class is to denigrate a student's religious beliefs by "inoculating" them against "toxic versions" of religion. The Constitution does not wear blinders and look only at the content of the class, it looks at the intent of the school district in providing the information. Constitutional law requires that public schools neither advance nor inhibit the free exercise of religion by students, and when the class is "compulsory" and specifically intended to "inoculate" students against "toxic religion," the intent dooms the act to unconstitutionality. This is because a school district, and indeed any government agent, is not authorized to determine what religions, or what parts of which religions are "toxic," because to do so is to violate the Establishment Clause.

What he is saying is that if you taught such a class in school, the students would not be ignorant of the history, creed, rituals, music, symbols, ethical commands and prohibitions of various religions, and would then make reasonable choices.

But his motives are unconstitutional, as is his implementation. First, he wants it to be compulsory, and he wants it taught continuously, every year, beginning in grade school. That's propaganda and indoctrination, not education. As an elective in High School, a survey course on comparative religion is allowable. As a bald-faced attempt to reprogram children's thoughts about their own religions by deliberately presenting conflicting information about the child's religion not approved by the parents, as a compulsory and repetitive program of indoctrination of highly suggestible and pliable young minds it's utterly unconstitutional.

In any case, I want organized religion wiped out, for sure. I wouldn't use law to do it, though. I think that over time, if human civilization survives, we will make another great leap forward. Like moving from burning witches to the Enlightenment. Hopefully, in the coming centuries we will collectively grow out of this nonsense.

Or not...I suspect in the future we'll all be either Muslims, Mormons, or Catholics.