I don't know about "nattering fuckwit", but I generally agree with his assertion that labeling children as a christian, muslim, or whatever religion their parents foist upon them is akin to abuse. It simply reasserts the label their parents have chosen for them, not one that they have chosen themselves. When used as in, you're bad because you're that, and we're good because we're this, then lifelong conflicts are established.
I agree with him about labeling children; I consider it a form of abuse. But Dawkins can't leave well enough alone, hence what appears to be a new interest in condemning fanciful books he doesn't approve of. That's fanaticism.
I don't think I even mind condemning books, although I think we could just point out disagreements with them and leave it at that, it's the banning of books I would resist with fanaticism.
I don't know about "nattering fuckwit", but I generally agree with his assertion that labeling children as a christian, muslim, or whatever religion their parents foist upon them is akin to abuse. It simply reasserts the label their parents have chosen for them, not one that they have chosen themselves. When used as in, you're bad because you're that, and we're good because we're this, then lifelong conflicts are established.
ReplyDeleteMichael
I agree with him about labeling children; I consider it a form of abuse. But Dawkins can't leave well enough alone, hence what appears to be a new interest in condemning fanciful books he doesn't approve of. That's fanaticism.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I even mind condemning books, although I think we could just point out disagreements with them and leave it at that, it's the banning of books I would resist with fanaticism.
ReplyDeleteMichael