8. Consciousness-raising. Feminists and homosexuals have taught us the value of consciousness-raising. A phrase like “One man one vote” either causes you to flinch, or is uttered with intent to make you flinch. It is nowadays almost impossible to hear the phrase with its original innocent meaning of “One adult person one vote.” Some atheists and freethinkers try to raise consciousness about, for example, the phrase ‘under God’ in the US Pledge of Allegiance. I am more interested in raising consciousness about something else: the habit, practised not only by religious people, of labeling children by the religion of their parents. This is a Catholic child. That is a Muslim child. I want everybody to flinch when they hear such a phrase, just as they would if they heard, That is a Marxist child. It is immoral to brand young children with the religion of their parents. At present, hardly anybody’s consciousness is raised to this. I would welcome suggestions, perhaps from those with experience of the feminist and gay campaigns, for the most effective ways to raise consciousness. I would like such consciousness-raising to be a particular project of this foundation.
Dawkins is also a founding member of the 'bright‘ political movement that has goals such as:
The movement's three major aims are:
A. Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
B. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
C. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.
How any freeper can defend this guy is beyond meÂ… He is a sad parody of himself and all that he despises. But thereÂ’s more:
I am persuaded that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell.
-Dawkins
Both Christians and atheists in the US teach their children that there ‘is’ actual consequences for their actions according to both the laws of the household and the laws of the state. Are the laws of the household and/or the laws of the state also child abuse? Furthermore, if this charlatan met a child in a Christian household that ‘he’ actually believes is being abused, would he do what ‘he’ believes is right and immediately remove the child or call the authorities to enforce the laws ‘he’ now is trying to legislate? Somebody get this guy the brown jacket and jackboots ‘he' deserves.
All in the name of neo-Darwinism (the current ‘turd‘ in the punchbowl).
Dawkins has reasoned himself to insanity...