Militant atheists are on the rise...or decline, depending who you talk to. Ironically it was atheists who suggested to me the militancy is on the decline and that the existence of this aggressive version is rather embarassing. Nope, I didn't see that coming.
Not the only do I have trouble seeing militancy is on the decline but 2 of the more prominent "M.A" folk are Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss. Both have made startling comments about raising of children in a religious way in a religious family is comparable to child abuse. As Krauss has said, to be a believer in the science of morality (yes I have to go seek out whatever that's meant to mean) he thinks its child abuse to raise child in a Christian world view. Both he & Dawkins see things only their way to be moral & differing views immoral. And it didn't take long for both to cop critics' abuse over their own personal lives and when comes to raising children. They both have each had more wives than children so probably should stick to their qualified fields rather than advise on child raising.
I don't know a lot about Child Abuse, but I do know raising children in a religious house hold is not child abuse. Unsure about Krauss but Dawkins himself was raised in a religious family and somehow only he was able to break free of the shackles and rise above that influence where as his comments suggest too many children are indoctrinated and cannot leave. I'm sure this can happen and many children can become trapped within a dangerous cult by guilting parents. Not sure likening them all to child abuse isn't the answer.
Empowering families to learn and use proper exegesis of their religion's scriptures is. Its amazing how many will implode but after several thousand years one still stands and also tells followers to listen to the pastor then check the Scriptures daily to see if its so. Richard & Lawrence won't follow that path.
Both have copped flak for profiting handsomely from their militant atheism. Hard getting a precise net worth on Lawrence, some have it around $2 million which for a bestselling author and a clever fellow we assume can manage money but he has gone through one divorce. Dawkins on the other hand is thought to have a net worth of $135 million which for a zoologist who's been divorced twice is a remarkable effort. However at a guess, much of his earnings these days would come from talk circuits, appearances & books. Not on zoology or biology, but on secular promotion, lampooning creationism and religion. This massive income stream all comes from Militant Atheism.
No not sledging people for making a quid, but it is a lucrative field & although it doesn't automatically skew their opinions it does set them squarely in the field where standing out is a career advancement move. The more provocative the better earnings wise.
So what is so wrong with raising your own children your way? Nothing, however as a society we have society expectations and we are wise to set boundaries for raising children. Its understandable that society prefers a love based set of boundaries and not a racist, sexist and/or human sacrificing devil worshipping based raising.
I think Dawkins aim is not so much what happens to individual children, most of who do exercise their free will and free thinking when they leave the home, but to change society's expectation which is not so much secular but militant atheistic. Somehow we're supposed to believe that is not a world view and if it is it's morally ok and not comparable to child abuse.
If we extend it fully then we should exert as little influence as possible on the children growing up, provide a moral vacuum and allow them to find their own way. I read of such a family that did that with their 2 daughters. One ended up dead prostitute junky and the sister not far behind. Had they been raised in a traditional Biblically sound Christian household then apparently that's akin to child abuse. Odd, I'm sure those very hippy parents aren't suffering just a little regret over their actions in raising the children. (?)
One thing for sure about Dawkins & Krauss, whilst Krauss certainly can stick to his knitting and career he still pops out with his militant atheism whenever possible whereas Dawkins is the full time convert and zoology will only get mentioned if its in connection with slamming creationism. More noticeable with Dawkins is his lack of tolerance of those with a differing view. Anyone disagreeing is subordinate or perhaps sub something else. He has elevated himself and on the occasions he's gone too far, he has apologised...although he has later retracted the apology.
He's fared quite well in one respect, his lack of respect, his dogma like pursuit on the religious views of others is akin to intolerance and bigotry but somehow the Teflon covers him. Its almost like bigotry applies to anyone who is intolerant, except those who are intolerant of Christians and Christianity.
No comments:
Post a Comment