Favoring stamping out religion seems like a ban that is effective. Granted I don't know how Dawkins proposes to carry out his agenda. Maybe he just wants the government to turn schools into brain washings institutions, and reach the minds and hearts of the young and thereby cause religion to die a natural death. He seems annoyed about the influence religious parents have on their young. How might that influence be "stamped out?" Why don't you ask him how he proposes to go about implementation?
Dawkin seems like an extremist. I think extremists usually tend to spoiliate the public square.
By the way expression of opinion are not libelous per se.
Hey, as long as I'm at it, do you think at least some religious opinions should be banned? For example, if a sect was teaching its kids to hijack planes and fly them into buildings, should the government stop them from teaching that? Maybe throw them in prison or take their kids away?
I wonder what the general opinion of FR posters would be. My guess, based on opinions I've read here, is that a significant number would support that ban. It would be an interesting poll.
If not a ban, would you support stamping out that religious teaching by some other means, social for example?
Do you think a ban would stamp it out? Bans per se aren't very effective stamping out means I think.