This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Imagine No Religion

Goldy's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by Goldy

That's the point, isn't it? You can't describe a child as anything but a child. When a person understands what religion means and either rejects it or embraces it, that's when the name calling can start :-) However, I was a Christian from, well, a month after my birth. Christened in Dec 1969. No matter what i thought, I was C of E, end of story. For some, I'm C of E until my last breath, no matter what. We could go on a case my case basis, but generally, a child is deemed of that religion from when it is born. Ethnic Malays are Muslim by law, no matter what their beliefs (you may recall the recent story of a woman, I believe called Joy, who wanted to change her classification to Christian. This was disallowed, to the cries of Allahu akbar, becasue once a Muslim, always a Muslim. Did anyone ask her if she wanted to be a Muslim at birth?). In some cases, there are a few preliminary priestly mumbles and maybe a spot of mutilation after birth to "welcome" the child to the fold after the actual birth, but generally, there is no choice. I think the child is not really important in the equation other than existing, which is why it has been described as abuse.
Personally, I don't think a child should be labelled anything other than a child. Even if they decide they want to be known as Christian or Muslim or Tea Potters, at a young age they are probably only mouthpieces of indoctrination (see this article and don't fully comprehend what it is they are meant to be thinking. Again, the theists arguing here are a good example of this, to me at least. In some cases, te indoctrination is so deep, evidence has to be interpreted with a god in it to make it understandable.
Ideally a case by case basis for description is right, but it doesn't happen that way.

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:28:00 UTC | #55204