Articles by admin

You are currently browsing admin’s articles.

Creationist zoo wins education prize

July 22, 2010 in creationism by admin | No comments

The controversial zoo which pushes a creationist agenda has apparently won an educational prize, says the British Humanist Association (BHA condemns “appalling decision” to give education award to creationist zoo).  The BHA says:

The BHA has strongly condemned the decision of the Council for Learning Outside the Classroom to award the creationist Noah’s Ark Zoo in Wraxall, near Bristol, a ‘Quality Badge’ in recognition of its educational programme.

The Council for Learning Outside the Classroom was established by the previous government to promote educational visits for schoolchildren. Its Quality Badge is intended to assist schools in identifying external organisations, such as museums, who are ‘committed to providing high quality teaching and learning experiences’. The Quality Badge was awarded to Noah’s Ark Zoo following a visit by assessors in June.

This absurd Zoo was much talked about last year (see for example Creationist zoo causes dismay in the ranks of the humanists, New Humanist article – a visit to Noah’s Ark Zoo and Creationist zoo suspended….  A so-called “zoo” which not only seeks to push creationism on visitors, many of whom are children, but seeks to discredit whole branches of science, such as evolution, radiocarbon dating and the like should not be awarded any kind of educational award.

Who are the Council for Learning Outside the Classroom?  Well, a quick Google search locates their website at http://www.lotc.org.uk, where we find the following:

Who are the CLOtC?

We are a registered charity existing to promote and champion Learning Outside the Classroom so all children and young people can benefit from increased opportunities for high quality and varied educational experiences. The Council took over responsibility for the Learning Outside the Classroom Manifesto in April 2009.

What do CLOtC do?

The Council champions learning outside the classroom and encourages young people to get out and about because research shows that children learn best through real life experiences.

The Council aims to be the leading voice for learning outside the classroom:

  • Influencing and challenging learning outside the classroom policy and practice
  • Raising the profile of learning outside the classroom and promoting the benefits
  • Providing support for education and LOtC professionals, aiming for high quality learning outside the classroom that meets the needs of young people

If an avowedly pro-creationist zoo can earn an LOtC award, one wonders what other awards have been made.  Vehicles for the propagation of falsehoods should not be awarded educational prizes. The very name Noah’s Ark Zoo should have raised alarm bells.

Tags: ,

Welsh councillor gets hassle for labelling Scientology “stupid”

July 21, 2010 in Scientology, religion by admin | No comments

The New Humanist blog is one of many web sites reporting on a fracas involving criticism via Twitter of Scientology (Welsh councillor in trouble for calling Scientology “stupid” on Twitter ). The synopsis of this story is that

When Cardiff councillor John Dixon visited London last year to buy a wedding ring for his wife to be, a stroll past the “Dianetics and Life Improvement Centre” on Tottenham Court Road (just round the corner from our office, as it happens) prompted him to make the following quip on Twitter:“I didn’t know the Scientologists had a church on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off.”

This has appeared to generate a bit of a problem for poor John Dixon, as the “Church” of Scientology made a complaint to the Welsh public service watchdog. As a consequence Dixon’s facing disciplinary action.

Problem is, as someone who’s read Russell Miller’s biography of Scientology’s founder L. Ron Hubbard (the wonderfully titled Bare Face Messiah), I’m rather inclined to agree with Dixon. It’s also why I place quotation marks around “Church”, and why I believe Scientology is complete claptrap and an exercise in generating a huge income. Herewith my modest contribution to the Streisand Effect.

On the other hand (and in a spirit of even-handedness), I suggest the core beliefs of most established religions are equally loopy.

(Originally posted at flies&bikes)

Tags: ,

The Caleb Foundation

June 18, 2010 in creationism, religion by admin | 1 comment

My interest in the Caleb Foundation was fuelled by recent news stories about the Northern Ireland Culture Minister Nelson McCausland’s communication to the Ulster Museum concerning his desire that the museum offer space to creationist claptrap, apparently on the grounds that many people believe in divine creation (see Creationism in Northern Ireland).  This was followed by news that The Caleb Foundation want to see creationist tosh presented at a visitor centre to be built at the Giant’s Causeway (see More creationism in Northern Ireland).  It’s not clear whether Mr McCausland is a member of the Caleb Foundation or not, but it would seem that the Caleb Foundation supports his desire to pollute the Ulster Museum with creationism (see the newsletter pieces dated 26th and 27th May at the Caleb Foundation website).

Who are the Caleb Foundation?
You can see the leading lights of the Caleb Foundation at their website.  These individuals are the Caleb Council, comprising “representatives from a number of mainline Evangelical Denominations”.  And indeed they are, with a considerable number of Free Presbyterians in their midst.  Being an atheist, the fine details of their individual cults are more than a little murky, but there is a heavy evangelical slant to them.  You can also see their Statement of Faith.  Top of the list is:

That the Bible is the inspired, infallible and inerrant word of God. It is final in its authority. None may add thereto or take away therefrom except at their own peril.

OK, so these guys believe in the literal truth of the Bible. This is presumably what restricts their critical capacity, which as we’ll see when considering their coverage of science (particularly relating to what they see as the evolution-creationism “controversy” is poor.  Interestingly, and for the notice of some of the posters in the Caleb Foundation Forum (most or all of whom appear to be atheists), they are quite clear which bible they refer to:

In the interests of uniformity all spokesmen, public statements, publications and meetings of The Caleb Foundation shall use and quote from the Authorised Version of the Holy Scriptures.

The main protagonist in the Ulster Museum story is Nelson McCausland, DUP member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure in the Assembly.  He’s had a bit of a roasting for suggesting that there should be consideration of creationism in the Ulster Museum, apparently on the grounds that a large proportion of the population believe in a creation myth (presumably his christian creation myth).  McCausland has a blog, “Nelson’s View“, and this is quite informative on his dealings with the Ulster Museum.  His ministerial position clearly requires him to have a duty to the museum sector, and a quick overview of blog indicates that the creationism kerfuffle is merely one issue of about ten that he has with the content of the museum (the others are to do with displays relating to cultural aspects of life and history in Northern Ireland).  He makes no mention on his blog of his religious affiliation and there are no links to the Caleb Foundation (though he does record meetings with representatives).  The Caleb Foundation clearly approves of his creationist stance.

What do the Caleb Foundation want?

We see a number of links within the front page of their website – two significant items are “The Lord’s Day” and “Creation“, with the latter supported by  a link to “ULSTER MUSEUM DATA“, of which more later.  From perusing the Caleb Foundation website, and looking around the internet, it’s clear that these guys work quite hard to influence events relating to their main objectives of enforcing literalist bible interpretation and imposing evangelical (but probably minority) christian views on the rest of Northern Ireland.  Politically, it would seem they are pretty much aligned with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).  Northern Irish politics operates slightly differently to mainland UK politics, with most (all?) Northern Irish MPs being members of local parties, often with sectarian roots.

The Lord’s Day

I blogged a while ago on the subject of Sunday observance (Ferries on The Sabbath), in the context of changes to business in the Outer Hebrides, particularly Lewis and Harris where the predominant form of christianity is The Free Church of Scotland (aka “the Wee Frees”, I guess pejoratively).  I have sympathy for the cultural situation regarding the observance of Sunday as a day of rest in that case.  However for a modern, diverse society (particularly one that has experienced deep sectarian divides) to continually resist normal day to day activity because of scripture strikes me as wrong.

Creationism
There are two links related to the Ulster Museum fracas. The first, “Creationism”, merely links to an audio about dinosaurs, which frankly I cannot bother listening to after the plug for text for use in church messages and newsletters. The second link “ULSTER MUSEUM DATA” leads one to a list of exhibits compiled during someone’s visit to the museum. I guess the errors are due to hasty scribblings. This is rather a peculiar page – after listing a series of statements associated with dates, we reach

COELACANTH
It’s claimed that fossil rocks are 300 -800 million years old. Yet a modern coelacanth is displayed and we are told they are still found.

Now this statement is classic “failure to understand”. More “failure to understand” is to come:

EVOLUTION – ADAPTATION OR DESIGN?
“In evolution, however, organisms are limited by what they inherit from their ancestors and by the properties of the biological materials of which they are made”. [A legitimate question for us might be ‘how then can one species become another?’]

Perhaps the anonymous visitor to the museum could have read a bit more widely than the bible – perhaps dipping into any responsible biology text book. And look, more:

“FOSSILS – LIFE OF THE PAST”
Under a heading, “The Importance of Fossils”, we are told, “only a tiny fraction of living things become fossils”. [We could therefore argue that a massive amount of evidence is simply ignored!]

So the undiscovered fossils (and the specimens that never became fossilised) are somehow “ignored evidence”. Does the anonymous writer really not understand concepts of sampling? Ultimately, this page on the website doesn’t really achieve much – I suspect the reader is supposed to disbelieve the statements of age, and accept the silly comments from the author.

Other views of the Caleb Foundation on the internet…

The British Centre for Science Education (BCSE) hosts an excellent series of pages relating to creationism and its perpetrators, including this page on the Caleb Foundation.  While some of the links appear to have changed (e.g. links which are given to creationism in schools and an attach on a Radio Ulster person now link to the Ulster Museum Notes and a contact form respectively), there’s information on the political and religious affiliation of the Caleb Foundation.  BCSE reckons (and they are right) that the Caleb Foundation is riddled with creationists and creationism.  It’s also clear that Caleb Foundation members regularly lobby of inclusion of creationism on school classes and on other platforms.  The BCSE also suggest that the DUP is committed to the teaching of creationism (despite the absence from their 2007 manifesto), and relates this to the party’s protestant background, and implicates the Caleb Foundation either in the root of this policy or as a means of lobbying on its behalf.  It’s an article worth reading – for example on the subject of the religious/creationist axis in the DUP (bear in mind the article appears to date from 2007 and won’t reflect events in the recent UK General Election):

The DUP is the largest Northern Irish political party in terms of the number of seats it has both in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in Westminster. It holds 36 out of 55 Protestant seats in the 108 seat in the Assembly and 9 of the 18 Northern Ireland seats in Westminster. It is believed that around half or more of DUP MLAs (Members of the Legislative Assembly) are members of the tiny Free Presbyterian Church although the latter’s membership is less that 1% of the population of the province.(2)

As is the case in the USA, getting creationism into Northern Irish schools appears to involve a considerable degree of sneakiness as well as extreme language and paranoid claims by its proponents. The martyrdom complex is openly displayed as well. However, the DUP’s position undoubtedly reflects the rampant belief in creationism amongst evangelicals in the province so the DUP is not working in a social vacuum. As there is no official, public, DUP position on the matter it is not clear how widespread the support for creationism is in the party. The evidence so far suggests that a core of, maybe, around half a dozen very senior politicians within the DUP, are actively promoting it.

The silly Biologos Foundation website reports on the Giant’s Causeway news story.  Neither supports nor decries the Caleb Foundation’s position, and refers readers to the BBC News website.

The Wikipedia page on the late George Dawson MLA reinforces the tight integration of the Caleb Foundation with the DUP, and thereby the Northern Ireland political scene.  Here is a Caleb Foundation submission regarding the proposed Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland (pdf) – he document makes it abundantly clear the literalist approach to the bible these people take.

There are further examples of Caleb Foundation’s political lobbying for adoption of literalist and fundamentalist principles.  For example the European Institute for Protestant Studies reprinted a press release on the Caleb Foundation’s response to an EU Gender Directive:

The Caleb Foundation has welcomed news that the First Minister of Northern Ireland, the Rt Hon Dr Ian Paisley MP, MLA, has blocked the implementation of EU legislation to include homosexual, lesbian and transgender people.

In a press release the Caleb Foundation said: “This EU Directive carries with it the threat to criminalise honest, sincere and devout people who happen to believe that certain practices are morally objectionable. There are many tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland who hold these kinds of lifestyles to be sinful and offensive. That they should be coerced in law to facilitate such practices is itself morally wrong.”

At this point, I felt that I’d sufficiently explored the Caleb Foundation.  Indeed having encountered the BCSE’s pages on the subject, I’d happily refer the reader to those pages, which offer a detailed overview of the Caleb Foundation’s membership, motives and activities.

Tags: ,

Weep, Texas, weep…

May 22, 2010 in creationism, religion by admin | No comments

The BBC News website reports the adoption of a right wing christian syllabus in Texas (Texas schools to get controversial syllabus).  The article lists a bunch revisions to US history, but not the creationism issue.

Students in Texas will now be taught the benefits of US free-market economics and how government taxation can harm economic progress.

They will study how American ideals benefit the world but organisations such as the UN could be a threat to personal freedom.

And Thomas Jefferson has been dropped from a list of enlightenment thinkers in the world-history curriculum, despite being one of the Founding Fathers who is credited with developing the idea that church and state should be separate.

The doctrine has become a cornerstone of US government, but some religious groups and some members of the Texas Education Board disagree, our correspondent says.

The board, which is dominated by Christian conservatives, voted nine-to-five in favour of adopting the new curriculum for both primary and secondary schools.

Tags: , ,

New Creationism

April 23, 2010 in creationism by admin | No comments

Some months ago, Paul Garner launched his New Creationism blog, which pushes a dual agenda of promoting his book (also entitled “The New Creationism”), and a general belief in literal bible-based creationism. Paul presents himself as follows:

Paul Garner is a researcher and lecturer with Biblical Creation Ministries and the author of The New Creationism (Evangelical Press, 2009). He has a degree in Environmental Sciences (Geology/Biology) and is a Fellow of the Geological Society. He is married with two children and resides in Cambridgeshire, England.

I’m not sure where he studied for his degree in Environmental Sciences, but he does liberally sprinkle geological references within articles in his blog. Unfortunately, he’s felt it necessary to suspend commenting on his blog (actually, I’d observe this is frequently the case with creationist sites). The Biblical Creation Ministries, for whom he works as a researcher/lecturer

[...]is a charitable trust that supports two creation speakers. Our aim is to help people trust the Bible’s account of earth history. We believe that the book of Genesis is foundational to the Christian gospel and vital for a correct understanding of physical and biological origins.

The BCM supports two speakers, one of whom is Paul Garner. Amusingly, there is a page at the BCM site which outlines their beliefs (Statement of Faith ), which ia rather illuminating, particularly the sections near the bottom of the page concerning Creation, Fall, and Flood – and implications for scientific and historical study, notably the final bullet point:

No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any historical or scientific field of study can be valid if it contradicts the record of Holy Scripture. Evidence is always subject to interpretation by people who are fallen, fallible, and limited in knowledge.

Over the last few months, Paul’s been blogging favourable reviews of his book, and to his credit has alerted the reader to a rather negative review over at the christian Premier Community Forum, in which a poster Michael takes issue with one specific chapter (Chapter 5, Is the Present the key to the Past?). Now, I’m not particularly familiar with geological processes, so I generally don’t take part in such discussions (this is no exception), but I’d note that the discovery of “deep time” is one largely derived from geological study, so it’s rather interesting that a graduate in geology takes a strict YEC interpretation of the world around us.

At the moment, the thread spreads over about five pages. Some sample quotes from Paul Garner:

No, Christians should put Scripture first, not science. Giving science the priority really would be putting the cart before the horse. And if you read my book, you’ll discover that it’s all about scientific work being undertaken by Christians – work that confirms the Scriptural framework of a recent creation and global flood.

and

And in my view the Bible’s record of creation and the flood counts as evidence.

I think this pretty much sums up why any of the statements and claims made at the New Creationism can not be taken as serious science.  Articles on the conformity of geological observations with biblical writing are just not tenable, and frequent discussions of the origins of species within a framework of spurious concepts such as baraminology are similarly unscientific.

Why would any rational investigator make direct observation and experimental work subservient to a historical document espousing a mythical worldview?

Tags:

Skeptical Voter wiki

April 8, 2010 in creationism, skeptic by admin | No comments

With the media insanity of the General Election now upon us, it’s always interesting to know what your MP or candidate MPs believe.  Particularly where odd beliefs are concerned.

I came across The Skeptical Voter, which is rather interesting.  For example, at the page Early Day Motion 2708: Science Education, we can see who signed the Early Day Motion

“That this House shares the concerns of the British Centre for Science Education that the literature being sent to every school in the United Kingdom by the creationist religious group Truth in Science is full of scientific mistakes and fails to disclose the group’s creationist beliefs and objectives; and urges all schools to treat this literature with extreme caution.”

There’s also ample opportunity to see the dumb things your elected representative might have said on matters ranging from homeopathy to abortion to climate change and more.

Tags: , ,

Templeton prizewinner Ayala interviewed in New Scientist

April 3, 2010 in delusions, religion by admin | 2 comments

The Templeton Prize was recently awarded, garnering considerable criticism and gossip in the scientific blogosphere.  Partly this was due to the venue chosen to host the event (the American National Academy of Sciences), but also in part due to the sport of guessing who would be the recipient (the Templeton Foundation appeared to forbid discussion of our guesses as to the likely recipient).  In the end most of the guessing seemed to be in error – the recipient turned out to be Francisco Ayala.  While best known as a population biologist and evolutionary geneticist, he was ordained as a Dominican priest in 1960 (though his Wikipedia page indicates he left the priesthood in the same year).

The science magazine New Scientist has an interview with Ayala, in the wake of the award (Templeton prizewinner: We need science plus morality).  In the interview, the usual subjects are touched upon.  Typically, in response to  “You won for arguing there is no contradiction between science and religion. Many disagree.”, Ayala responds:

They are two windows through which we look at the world. Religion deals with our relationship with our creator, with each other, the meaning and purpose of life, and moral values; science deals with the make-up of matter, expansion of galaxies, evolution of organisms. They deal with different ways of knowing. I feel that science is compatible with religious faith in a personal, omnipotent and benevolent God.

I kind of take exception to this response, principally because is implies those of us who hold no religious beliefs are somehow lacking in morality.  Further, this “different ways of knowing” is, it seems to me, something of a cop out, particularly in light of his statement that “Religion deals with our relationship with our creator”.  Different ways of knowing what, exactly?  What indeed does “knowing” mean?  As an atheist, who sees no evidence for any god, it looks to me as though religion is “a way of deluding” oneself rather than a different “way of knowing”.

I also (personally) cannot see how “science is compatible with religious faith in a personal, omnipotent and benevolent God”, given that science requires an evidence-base.  That’s not to say that I accept some individuals are capable of such compatibility – after all, there is evidence that some people are capable of this duality.

At the same time, some scientists claim they can use science to prove God does not exist. Science can do nothing of the kind.

Hmm…well I suggest that an observation that there is no evidence for a deity leads me to think there is probably no deity, a probabilty which approaches unity. Asked “Why do you say creationism is bad religion?”,  Ayala responds:

Creationism and intelligent design are not compatible with religion because they imply the designer is a bad designer, allowing cruelty and misery. Evolution explains these as a result of natural processes, in the same way we explain earthquakes, tsunamis or volcanic eruptions. We don’t have to attribute them to an action of God.

I suspect that (in light of Ayala’s refusal to answer the interviewer’s final question on whether he believes in God), he may well be talking in general terms.  But you’ve really got to accept that an omnipotent and all-seeing deity (were one to exist) allows these natural events to happen, even though such a hypothetical deity is supposed to be omnipotent.  At the very least one would have to attribute non-intervention as carelessness!

All in all a rather unsatisfying interview (after all it’s just a brief opinion piece), and one that might well serve to harden agnosticism/atheism.  Perhaps not what the Templeton Foundation would really exist.  I’m unable to comment at the New Scientist site, as one has to be a subscriber to do so.

Tags: , ,

Catholic child abuse – Andrew Brown lights the blue touchpaper

March 11, 2010 in religion by admin | No comments

In the wake of reports on child abuse by Catholic priests spanning continents, and of course the insitutionalised cover-ups perpetrated by the Church hierarchy, Andrew Brown has published an astonishingly naive and ill-considered apologia on their behalf.  The general argument Brown makes just takes my breath away.  I will leave it to commenters there to demolish his argument.

Update.  However, the following excerpt really astonishes me in what it reveals in Brown’s inability to think through data (emphasis is mine).

These questions lead into a thicket of horror. The most detailed statistics on child abuse for the Catholic clergy that I can find come from the John Jay Institute’s report drawn up for the American Catholic bishops’ conference. From this it emerges that the frequency of child abuse among Catholic priests is not remarkable but its pattern is. Although there are no figures for the number of abusers in the wider population, there are figure for the number of victims. These vary wildly: the most pessimistic survey finds that 27% of American women and 16% of men had “a history of childhood sexual abuse”; while the the most optimistic had 12.8% of women and 4.3% of men. Obviously a great deal depends here on the definition of abuse; also on the definition of “childhood”. In some of these surveys it runs up to 18, which is a couple of years above the age of consent in Britain.

The Catholic figures show that between about 4% of priests and deacons serving in the US between 1950 and 2002 had been accused of sexual abuse of someone under 18. In this country, the figure was a 10th of that: 0.4% But whereas the victims in the general population are overwhelmingly female, the pattern among American Catholic priests was quite different. Four out of five of their victims were male. Most were adolescents: two out of five were 14 or over; 15% were under 10.

This is vile, but whether it is more vile than the record of any other profession is not obvious.

On what conceivable basis can Brown conclude that Catholic priests are any less vile than any other profession?  Where are the data for teachers, road sweepers, university lecturers?  Brown admits there is vagueness related to victim gae and the definition of sexual abuse.  And much abuse is by family members.

And Brown says a rate of 4% accused abuser rate is no worse than that of other sectors of the populations.  Where is his evidence?

Tags:

Signed Dawkins books on eBay

March 6, 2010 in atheism, humour by admin | No comments

The Reverend Dr Peter Hearty (of Platitude of the Day fame) has announced that signed copies of five books by Richard Dawkins have been put up for auction on eBay.  From the Platitude of the Day web page:

Five Richard Dawkins books, signed by the author and dedicated to the “Platitude of the Year 2009 winner” are now being auctioned on eBay. Proceeds of the auction will go to the National Secular Society.

The books were the prize offered for the most platitudinous Thought For The Day on Radio 4 during 2009. This was won by the Rt Rev James Jones, Lord Bishop of Liverpool and Bishop of Prisons, for reminding us of the contribution that Christianity played in solving the problems of Northern Ireland. The prize was forfeit as the bishop failed to attend the award ceremony during the Secularist of the Year.

These books therefore form a unique and highly collectable set. They were purchased by Roger Scotford and are being auctioned by Peter Hearty. The five books are:

The Greatest Show on Earth (hardback)
Climbing Mount Improbable (paperback)
Unweaving the Rainbow (paperback)
The God Delusion (paperback)
The Ancestor’s Tale (paperback)

More details on eBay.

Please don’t label me campaign riles the religious

November 21, 2009 in atheism, religion by admin | No comments

A new poster campaign from the British Humanist Campaign that suggests people should try to avoid indoctrinating children into religious (and other) beliefs seems to have riled certain sectors of society.  The posters feature a couple of happy kids (of which more later) on a backdrop of ideologies and religions, with a slogan in the font and colour scheme familiar from the atheist bus campaign.

Please dont label me

The billboards seem to antagonise religious people (though notice the grey captions in the background aren’t restricted to religions).  For example in Befast, that hotbed of religious tolerance, we see in the Belfast Telegraph (Humanist poster stirs up religious storm) that

Reverend David McIlveen from the Free Presbyterian Church said: “It is none of their business how people bring up their children. It is the height of arrogance that the BHA would even assume to tell people not to instruct their children in the religion. I would totally reject the advertisement. It is reprehensible and so typical of the hypocrisy of the British Humanist Association today. They have a defeatist attitude and are just trying to draw attention to themselves. I think it is totally arrogant, presumptuous and sparks of total hypocrisy. I believe this doesn’t deserve a counter campaign. I will be expressing my public position on it in my own church on Sunday. I will be saying that this advert is another attack on the Biblical position of the family and will be totally rejecting it.”

I call this sad and pathetic.  It’s not telling people how to bring up their kids, it suggesting we might leave kids to make their own minds up in their own time.  How is it an attack on the Biblical position of the family?  Has the Rev McIlveen read the poster?  Elsewhere the press seems equally exercised.  Ruth Gledhill over at The Times (Children who front Richard Dawkins’ atheist ads are evangelicals) gleefully reports that:

The two children chosen to front Richard Dawkins’s latest assault on God could not look more free of the misery he associates with religious baggage. With the slogan “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself”, the youngsters with broad grins seem to be the perfect advertisement for the new atheism being promoted by Professor Dawkins and the British Humanist Association.

Except that they are about as far from atheism as it is possible to be. The Times can reveal that Charlotte, 8, and Ollie, 7, are from one of the country’s most devout Christian families.

Her satisfaction at this news is shared by a variety of evangelicals.  However the backers of the poster campaign point out that

“That’s one of the points of our campaign,” said Andrew Copson, the association’s education director. “People who criticise us for saying that children raised in religious families won’t be happy, or that no child should have any contact with religion, should take the time to read the adverts.

“The message is that the labelling of children by their parents’ religion fails to respect the rights of the child and their autonomy. We are saying that religions and philosophies — and ‘humanist’ is one of the labels we use on our poster — should not be foisted on or assumed of young children.”

Well, exactly.  And it’s really quite telling that the religious axis seem to be so thoroughly paranoid that they regard any questioning of the indoctrination of children into any belief system – political and religious to be an attack on their superstitious claptrap.

It’s not just christians that take umbrage.  Also from the Belfast Telegraph is this gem:

Father-of-four Sheikh Anwar Mady from the Belfast Islamic Centre added: “We believe that every child is born as a Muslim. Religion is not given by the family, but it is a natural religion given by our God at birth. The role of the family is to teach the traditions of the faith. But that faith is implanted at birth.”

This chap is claiming every child as a muslim.  How does that square with his fellow-travellers in mystic mumbo-jumbo?

Tags: , ,

« Older entries