If you are referring to the interview you linked, at 2:20, then he talked out against segregated religious schools, and the notion that children are “catholic” or “buddhist” before they can really make up their own minds. And nothing more.
Yes, he said teaching a child to be the religion of his parents is child abuse. He specifically said the words ‘child abuse’.
Did he really say that? There seems to be a growing anti-religion attitude among the atheist community, but I still believe they are very much the loud-mouthed minority. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was a counter-remark to a religious extremist saying that raising a child without God is abusive. Even so, two wrongs do not make a right.
I am getting very creeped out by the frequency and degree of these religious debates. I long for a civilized discussion among representatives of all views.
I posted a cite above. Watch it for yourself. He said that raising a child as protestant, catholic etc… is child abuse.
I am one of the people who thought it was funny, and I am an atheist.
I liked that episode as well, and I truly believe its argument of “even if there was no religion in the world, people would still find pithy things to argue over.” (One of my biggest regrets in life, however, was the fact that my making a reference to this episode and that argument in a thread about athiesm lead to a series of events that angered Eve so much that she left this board. I still miss her, as I’m sure all of you do.)
Did you accidentally crush her like a clam on your belly?
Atheist here and I thought it amusing. I don’t care for rap but seeing Darwin getting down was worth the time I invested.
I’m not sure what exactly they were satrizing, but they made a pun on Rev. Wilberforce’s name, so that’s funny.
What happened? I took recently 10 months away from the dope so I didn’t even know she was gone.
Do you have another site than the second youtube link, at 2:20? Because he doesn’t say that there. What he says is that it is wicked for the schools to label children by their parents religion.
He even specifically says that you can’t stop parents from doing anything regarding teaching of religion, you could only change the school system so that there are no catholic schools for instance.
I think you need to watch it again…
Umm actually he did. He used the words, “Child abuse”, straight up. That’s not open for interpretation. He is talking about how the state should mitigate that, but that doesn’t change that he considers the very act of teaching it that it belongs to a certain religion is ‘child abuse’. I don’t understand the need to twist it away from that. He is arguing against sectarian schools as well.
I think you need to not twist it. He specifically said, “Teaching a child that they are a catholic child, a protestant child, or a muslim child is child abuse.”, yes the context is the role of school in that social order, but that doesn’t change that he called it child abuse.
Claiming otherwise is simply willfully misleading.
And follows that by saying “that becomes child abuse.” AT 2:20 spot on.
Here is the commentary from Richard Dawkins’ site.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2409,n,n
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/if_you_heard_my_voice_you_know.php#comments
I met PZ Myers once. I had totally forgotten that I had worked with him until my friend reminded me. I’ve been reintroduced to his existance recently. We produced an interview with him once.
Yes, he used the words “wicked” and “child abuse”. My point was that it was about labelling children with a specific religion. It was not about parents teaching their religion to their kids.
Lol the Dickie D can’t understand a single word of the video. I think he is starting to show his age. 
Dawkins, with many others, makes a distinction between
(1) Teaching a child the doctrine of a particular religion, and furthermore telling the child that this religion is correct and all others are wrong, and
(2) Labeling a child as a member of that religion.
He has called (2) “child abuse”. He has never, to my knowledge, called (1) “child abuse”.
You may consider the distinction between (1) and (2) to be hairsplitting, but he does not, so you twist his meaning when you attribute the wrong one to him. You may also consider it equally odious to call either (1) or (2) “child abuse”, but you should at least get straight which one he did.
Also mswas I think you are misunderstanding that he wants the state to do. He doesn’t want it to interfere with the families’ upbringing of their children. He wants it to not label children, by sponsoring all-christian schools, for instance.
Strawman. I am not misunderstanding anything. The position you seem to think I hold is a misunderstanding. I was merely commenting on the ‘child abuse’ comment. He thinks that it’s child abuse, but he won’t go so far as to say the state should put a stop to it because it would be politically irresponsible to do so, but he still thinks it is child abuse.
Yeah, that is definitely hairsplitting. He took a stance that bringing up a child in one’s own faith is child abuse. Pure and simple. Arguing the minutiae of the semantics is pointless. That’s the bottom line.
When you bring a child up in a religious community, telling them they are “X” is telling them that they are a member of the community. Regardless of how you lawyer it, that’s saying that a religious upbringing is child abuse.
Am I the only one who thinks it would be absolutely awesome if there was a machine that stalked the hallowed halls of our institutes of higher learning, seeking out stealth Creationists to rubberstamp and hurl out of a window?