The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Richard Dawkins attacks David Cameron over faith schools

An open letter to the Prime Minister from the New Statesman's guest editor.

By New Statesman Published 12 December 2011 12:05

"Do you get it now, Prime Minister?"

In his leading article in the 19 December issue of the New Statesman, which he has guest-edited, the evolutionary biologist and bestselling author Richard Dawkins launches a scathing attack on David Cameron and his government's imposition of religious tradition on society in the form of faith schools.

Dawkins's open letter, addressed to the Prime Minister, leads with a warning that we must not be distracted "from the real domination of our culture and politics that religion gets away with in (tax-free) spades"; indeed, these religious traditions are "enforced by government edict".

In a direct rebuke to David Cameron's "government, [which,] like its predecessors, does force religion on our society, in ways whose very familiarity disarms us", Dawkins lists examples, from bishops in the House of Lords and the fast-tracking of "faith-based charities to tax-free status" to the "most obvious and serious" case of government-imposed religion: faith schools.

"Faith schools don't so much teach about religion as indoctrinate in the particular religion that runs the school," Dawkins writes. Telling a child that he or she belongs to one particular faith "pav[es] the way . . . for a lifetime of discrimination and prejudice".

Returning to a question he posed to Cameron in the Guardian last month - Why do you support faith schools? - Dawkins writes:

I satirised the faith-labelling of children using an analogy that almost everybody gets as soon as he hears it: we wouldn't dream of labelling a child a "Keynesian child" simply because her parents were Keynesian economists. Mr Cameron, you replied to that serious and sincere point [with] a contemptuous snigger: "Comparing John Maynard Keynes to Jesus Christ shows, in my view, why Richard Dawkins just doesn't get it." Do you get it now, Prime Minister? Obviously I was not comparing Keynes with Jesus. I could just as well have used "monetarist child" or "fascist child" or "postmodernist child" or "Europhile child".

Nor is Dawkins convinced by the Prime Minister's "contemptuous snigger" and his claims about misunderstanding: "I think you got it all along. If you are like several government ministers (of all three parties) to whom I have spoken, you are not really a religious believer yourself. Several ministers and ex-ministers of education whom I have met, both Conservative and Labour, don't believe in God but, to quote the philosopher Daniel Dennett, they do 'believe in belief'."

Dawkins adds: "A depressingly large number of intelligent and educated people, despite having outgrown religious faith, still vaguely presume without thinking about it that religious faith is somehow 'good' for other people, good for society, good for public order, good for instilling morals, good for the common people even if we chaps don't need it. Condescending? Patronising? Yes, but isn't that largely what lies behind successive governments' enthusiasm for faith schools?"

Furthermore, the enforcement of religion in society through politics is not democratic: "Baroness Warsi, your Minister Without Portfolio (and without election), has been at pains to inform us that this coalition government does indeed 'do God'." Yet British citizens who elected these ministers "mostly do not".

Modern society requires and deserves a truly secular state, by which I do not mean state atheism, but state neutrality in all matters pertaining to religion: the recognition that faith is personal and no business of the state.

In the leader, Dawkins also makes a point of wishing Cameron a "Merry Christmas". "All that 'Happy Holiday Season' stuff, with 'holiday' cards and 'holiday' presents, is a tiresome import from the US, where it has long been fostered more by rival religions than by atheists," he writes.

As a "cultural Anglican", he writes, "I recoil from secular carols such as 'White Christmas', 'Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer' and the loathsome 'Jingle Bells', but I'm happy to sing real carols, and in the unlikely event that anyone wants me to read a lesson I'll gladly oblige - only from the King James Version, of course."

cover

This special Christmas issue follows the much-discussed New Statesman guest edit by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, in June this year.

The issue, cover-dated 19 December, will go on sale in London on Tuesday 13 December and in the rest of the country from Wednesday 14 December. British and international readers can pre-order single-issue copies through our website from 1pm on Monday 12 December. If you have any purchasing queries, please email Stephen Brasher

Tags: Richard Dawkins

More from New Statesman

View the discussion thread.

155 comments

Mon, 2011-12-12 22:10 — Mark (not verified)

@Homo sapiens

From a google search on 'secularism definition', we get the following meaning for secularism:

1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

Now, if Dawkins is saying that religious considerations should be excluded from public education then that would be 'secularist indoctrination', wouldn't it? To say that public education *has* to keep God out of the classroom is to educate children in an educational framework that is so much part of the essence of a secularist viewpoint that it gets included in a fairly standard dictionary definition of the term.

The state shouldn't be committing itself to indoctrinating children by enforcing the absence of God (or gods) any more than it should be enforcing his or their presence.

Will that be divisive? Possibly. But that's democracy. We have basic democratic freedoms precisely because we understand that there is division about issues like truth, meaning, right and wrong, and a liberal-democratic state's position is to take as minimalist a stance on such questions as is possible.

Heck, even teaching evolution is divisive in some places, that's not an argument for keeping evolution out of the classroom. Most things that matter are divisive.

Mon, 2011-12-12 22:14 — Christian (not verified)

Having been educated at a state-funded faith school within the last two years, I'm probably better qualified than most to talk about the effects upon individuals: and I completely refute Dawkins' attack.

The benefit of a faith school is giving individuals a chance to ask philosophical and religious questions of themselves and then arrive at rational conclusions which they desire. Surely even Dawkins would agree that from his point of view, it would be better for individuals to encounter faith, and then reach their own conclusions, than never be asked the questions, as if it were some form of faith vaccination. This is essentially the effect which it had on the majority of my contemporaries.

What it did brilliantly, was breed a culture of understanding and acceptance of other faiths and ideals. Muslim, Sikh and Hindu parents would send their children to our joint Catholic-Anglican school on the basis that we have a better understanding of other cultures and are more accepting than secular state schools in an otherwise predominantly white area.

To be fair, demand for these schools may eventually decrease to a negligible level if the levels of those professing faiths continue to decline (at least Christians). However, until then, those who are not economically well-off enough to afford to attend an independent faith school, should have the right to express that belief. That's what freedom of speech is right? That's not imposing it on others... A schoolchild still has autonomy.

Tue, 2011-12-13 20:01 — Existential (not verified)

What a rational and intelligent person [Dawkins].

Mon, 2011-12-12 22:23 — Chris Hope (not verified)

There are plans to turn my local, successful High School into a faith school. This is preposterous. It is wrong that a few religious governors and senior members of staff can impose their fantasy of faith on children. You cannot tell me that when they gradually replace teaching staff that they will not inquire as to their faith? Keep religion out of schools. (I went to a faith school).

Thu, 2011-12-15 13:52 — Sir Michael (not verified)

"Rubbish! What you should have said was, "Anyone who supports liberty and freedom, for adults but not for children..." What about the liberty and freedom of children not to be brainwashed with a lot of supersticious nonsense?"

You quite simply have a fundamentalist mindset. You see viewpoints which oppose yours as "superstitious nonesense". Do you think it is possible that other people could hold intelligent and carefully considered views on religion and god? You can't get to the conclusion that god exists, and I utterly respect and indeed agree with that, but does that mean that others can't too?

This is where the atheist is no longer reasonable, rational, or liberal, and instead crosses over into being an inverted theocrat and wannabe despot.

Ohh and I just love the "childrens liberty" bit. I'll have to remember to tell the kids that one next time they don't want to do their maths homework.

Also, yes your views on democracy are terribly out of kilter with what a democracy is. Democracy isn't "mob rule" minus the flaming torch and pitchfork. If we had a poll after the Soham murders on whether to hang Huntely or give him prison what would the result have been?

And if what you say is true about opinion polls and what people are prepared to vote for, why ask for faith schools to be closed? Ask for a referendum first.

Hatred of religion is clear in your every post. From the odd jibe to the implication that people who THINK won't be religious. If that is what you are teaching your kids then you know who the real bigoted asshole is? I'll give you a clue, it's both the idiot principle of your school associating a lack of religion with raping and murdering and the moronic parent he is speaking to associating religion with ignorance and stupidity.

Mon, 2011-12-12 12:38 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

Do you know, I have clean forgotten what it is Dawkins is, or was, a professor of. Would it have been anything that gave him an insight about religious faith? Or was it wat my father used to call stinks and bug-hunting? Still, better than the dismal science, I suppose. I promise to say nothing about stinks or bug hunting if he promises to say nothing about religion. That way the world will run along very smoothly. Still, I don't suppose people go to the New Statesman for enlightenment but rather to shore up their prejudices. Shame about the sales figures, eh?

Mon, 2011-12-12 22:37 — Jake (not verified)

Oh wow, this really seems to have upset some religious believers, perhaps they should read the article again, or maybe have someone read it to them? Dawkins isn't trying to "impose" his atheism on anyone - quite the opposite, actually. He doesn't want the government giving money to schools which indoctrinate children. He's not saying these schools should not exist, but simply that they should not receive funding from the government. The UK needs to catch up to the rest of the secular Western world.

Mon, 2011-12-12 22:40 — Jake (not verified)

The sooner Britain stops funding "faith" schools, the better. And I say this as a Christian. Separation of Church and State is essential.

Mon, 2011-12-12 12:55 — Jonathan Smith (not verified)

Dawkins, it strikes me increasingly, seems to have a emotional/relational problem. He has a ridiculous sense of his own importance, a complete and unshakeable conviction in his own basic beliefs and and an utter lack of understanding of the outlook of Christian believers. I do wonder how it will turn out for him.

Mon, 2011-12-12 22:45 — Christian (not verified)

@Jake

By the rest of the secular world, I take it you mean France?

Mon, 2011-12-12 12:55 — niall scott (not verified)

Mr Pickering, I imagine you have access to google to sate that particular curiosity.
When people want votes they tend to try to curry favour with the religious and assume (correctly it would seem) that most people will assume religion is generally 'good' so not mind.
Fortunately people like Richard Dawkins are prepared to challenge noble myths and easy hypocrisy.
Dare I ask what would entitle him to comment upon the superstitious, internally inconsistent, mutually exclusive pre-scientific religions that seems to abuse power and people at will?

Mon, 2011-12-12 12:57 — bluplanet (not verified)

I agree with 99.9999% of evrything Richard Dawkins says. However, the charge that the government "does god" while most people in the country don't is not relevant to his argument. Most people in this country "do capital punishment" but thankfully even the tories "don't" or at least aren't allowed to yet!

Mon, 2011-12-12 22:48 — Mike (not verified)

Christian: "The benefit of a faith school is giving individuals a chance to ask philosophical and religious questions of themselves and then arrive at rational conclusions which they desire"

That is the benefit of a religious education curriculum which can be taught anywhere. Faith schools withhold that until after years of indoctrination in the official faith of the school, which includes recitations of creeds. They also withhold delivery of information about the world which conflicts with their teachings, in particular evolution.

And is it any wonder that so many evolutionary scientists are at the forefront of arguing for secular education when their fields of research are the most attacked by religious authorities? Britain now has a situation where students entering medical studies from faith-based schools don't believe the science upon which their profession is based.

"A schoolchild still has autonomy." I believe a schoolchild cannot choose to opt out of faith-based education until in their later years. When parents ask that their children not undergo faith-based instruction in many of these schools, the typical pattern of behaviour is to leave the child unattended for long periods or for the child to feel excluded by classmates.

Mon, 2011-12-12 13:03 — Mel Davis (not verified)

Does Richard Dawkins think he's the religion nazi or something. I am sick of him and his disciples who don't believe in God trying to bully and belittle anyone who doesn't share his views. Okay, he doesn't believe in 'sky gods' fair enough but why are you trying to force your convictions down everyone's throat, he don't believe in God so nobody else should. He really needs to get over himself. A joyless, miserable curmudgeon who is so arrogant it's offensive. He's just a man with a theory, he is nothing special.

Mon, 2011-12-12 15:17 — Notjarvis (not verified)

Barnie has it.

Religious schools are unfair, and divisive.

Fine - people can believe what they want.

But why should my taxes go to a school which my kids are not allowed to go to?

Can anyone give me a logical argument for this type of discrimination?

Mon, 2011-12-12 23:01 — CJ (not verified)

@Mel Davis...and others alike:

A person who calls people out for making demonstrably false truth claims about morality and the natural world is NOT an arrogant bully. Richard Dawkins is a brave, passionate and honest intellectual who cares deeply about this world and all life on it. Unlike those who make demonstrably false and harmful truth claims based on myth, not reason and evidence.

Mon, 2011-12-12 13:12 — Vorian (not verified)

"I promise to say nothing about stinks or bug hunting if he promises to say nothing about religion"

Only the religious make no such promise. The mission of religion is to force their superstition on everyone else, using the power and resources of state and law. That's why the nincompoops of the church are so keen to retain their place in parliament, and to keep pilfering our wages to pay for their indoctrination.

Mon, 2011-12-12 13:17 — stephanie (not verified)

there is no god.

get over it.

Mon, 2011-12-12 23:05 — Christian (not verified)

@Mike

"That is the benefit of a religious education curriculum which can be taught anywhere" - on the contrary, religious studies is general not taught from a philosophical or even inquisitorial standpoint. It is objective dry fact regurgitation, and would fail to give students a chance to ask philosophical and religious questions of themselves. That's having studied it, and the shared experience of other students who have studied it at other schools.

"They also withhold delivery of information about the world which conflicts with their teachings, in particular evolution." - This is an absolute fallacy. Faith schools do not without information about sciences, or any other area. Why would they? - it's against their interests. A schools primary target is to gain as many high grades, or increase students' potential as much as as possible - that's how they're ranked nationally. If a subject is in the syllabus of a specific nationally accepted qualification, than they must teach it, otherwise the student would be unable to pass that exam.

"Britain now has a situation where students entering medical studies from faith-based schools don't believe the science upon which their profession is based." - entirely refuted from my last point. Anyway, theologically, evolution doesn't conflict with Christianity - and that's your misunderstanding.

The religious aspect of a faith school does not impinge on the educational benefits it gives to the individual, or whatever ventures it engages in. There is a separation of the two. The faith aspect provides an ethos for that school, which engenders a caring and accepting learning environment.

"When parents ask that their children not undergo faith-based instruction in many of these schools, the typical pattern of behaviour is to leave the child unattended for long periods or for the child to feel excluded by classmates." - I think the main argument is to do with whether a student attends a school, and whether they indicate a desire to go to a faith school, not what they do when they're there. If parents are not religious, then there are other schools that students can attend - this is the element of choice.

Parents and students have the right to choose to either go to a faith school or not to go to a faith school. Individuals are not forced into either situation - and if they are, then that is not something anyone can condone. Equally however, that is not what I have been arguing for.

Mon, 2011-12-12 23:07 — Keir

To say that the majority of UK school-leavers from CoE schools believe in Young-Earth Creation is to misinform very badly. The issue of faith-based education is nothing to do with science, or Dawkins. It is to do with whether certain denominations, authoritarian because 'episcopal', get privileged access to pupils. This is a political and in my view an insidious one, ameliorated only because the great majority of pupils see it for what it is.

Mon, 2011-12-12 13:23 — Vorian (not verified)

By happy coincidence, this just came up in today's feeds:

http://www.defaithed.com/sites/defaithed.com/files/images/Secular-public...

Mon, 2011-12-12 23:09 — Keir

'This is a political and' should read:

'This is a political issue and'

Apologies.

Mon, 2011-12-12 13:41 — Vorian (not verified)

re: bluplanet
"Most people in this country "do capital punishment""

When it comes the crunch, apparently not: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/search?order=desc&page=1&q=capital+punis...

Of those that can be bothered to sign, those against the death penalty have been ahead by a good margin since the outset. Like belief in good, a popular love of hanging appears to be mythical.

Evidence is *always* better than faith.

Mon, 2011-12-12 13:42 — Philip (not verified)

Dawkins is not a 'religion nazi' (whatever that's supposed to mean) - he just bases his beliefs on evidence. If you think he's wrong about god, evolution or anything else for that matter - produce your own evidence to counter his. Then we'll all believe what you have to say instead. Oh what, you can't find any evidence? It doesn't exist? Then really, you have nothing to say worth listening to, do you.

Mon, 2011-12-12 23:26 — Mike (not verified)

@Christian: ". It is objective dry fact regurgitation, and would fail to give students a chance to ask philosophical and religious questions of themselves. That's having studied it, and the shared experience of other students who have studied it at other schools." That's your assertion. Any poorly taught class that relies on regurgitation can happen anywhere. A decent religious history class, or one that has an ethics component can be very invigorating for all, and their are secular school programs for these.

"Anyway, theologically, evolution doesn't conflict with Christianity - and that's your misunderstanding."

Theologically the Christian churches have a different idea of evolution where God supernaturally nudges everything. If you are Christian then the whole raison d'etre for Christ bound up with original sin, which falls apart if you don't have everyone descended from Adam & Eve.

"Parents and students have the right to choose to either go to a faith school or not to go to a faith school. Individuals are not forced into either situation - and if they are, then that is not something anyone can condone. Equally however, that is not what I have been arguing for."

Not all parents have a non-faith school within reach of their community and are presented with the choice of having to somehow "fit in" to schools who barely tolerate such, or having to move house or transport children great distances each day. There's "choice" for the wealthy and less for the rest.

"The religious aspect of a faith school does not impinge on the educational benefits it gives to the individual, or whatever ventures it engages in. There is a separation of the two." Really? When teachers are giving children homework exercises about "meeting Jesus", "what does heaven look like?"etc etc

Care to name your faith-based schools so they can be compared to the normal experience?

Tue, 2011-12-13 21:39 — iain (not verified)

oh come on,we brits already know that religion,mainly the christian cult,is evaporating before our eyes,and its great.it doesnt matter if you go to a cathy school or a prod one,we all remember getting taken to mass and everyone clowning around for the hour or so we were there,it was just a break from doing work for 99% of the school.we all know that the r.e teachers are the ones who get tortured the most.would be good if the idea of a faith school disappeared though,its the 21 st century after all but it doesnt matter,the main point is that in britain our parents dont indoctrinate you from a young age,essentially brainwashing you.at the very least,60% of us dont give a toss whether there is a god,its obviously alot higher than that,the catholic church has everyone registered as a catholic like a paedophile even if they leave the church and dont believe in god,so the number must be really high over all.im glad we stay in britain,the weathers crap but at least we dont get saturated in batshit crazy cult nonsense like america.who knows,maybe our crap weather is punishment from god for unbelief :D

Sat, 2011-12-17 02:04 — Kit (not verified)

"Cultural Anglican"? Would prefer to sing Christmas carols than jingle bells. Would read a lesson if asked. What kind of an atheist is Richard Dawkins? If Britain is not a Christian country - like he's said - and he is so strident in his atheism, why would he do this stuff, let alone step foot in a church? Honestly, this guy is like any other cult leader: a self-serving hypocrite.

Tue, 2011-12-13 13:45 — Neil (not verified)

Here is a transcript for those that don't Youtube.
Observe the great magician. The mighty wizard. See his pointy hat. Behold his mighty staff, his magic wand, his long flowing robes - far too impractical to do farming work in, this is a man of the gods - a man full of the knowledge of the ancients - can you not see his long white beard? This is a wise old man, wise in the words of the ancients. He can read! He has words, magic words, written in his spell book. The spell book he keeps in his private book-lined study with his candlesticks and incense. These are the magic words of the ancients who lived in the age of ,magic in the land of magic far to the East - the land of the Magi - the land of Zarathustra who also did thus spake. The wisdom of the ancients can't you hear him chant magical incantations in dead languages? This is no ordinary man. He has status. He has finery and wealth but he does not waste his time with luxuries he keeps himself to himself and his fellow wizards - away from the world of women and the activities of agriculture and commerce.

Behold his pointy hat his long robes his staff his magical amulet on a long chain this man is clearly a great wizard. He knows the wisdom of the ancients. Bow down and kiss his magic ring. Lo! He is offering you a drink from his magical goblet! Draw near to his table festooned with candlesticks and the scent of fine perfumes from the East, the magical holy lands, which block from his nostrils the stench of the sweat of honest toil of the flock he fleeces regularly each week and especially at each harvest which he blesses with his magic words and hand gestures. Look he has the symbol of his role as a pastor, a keeper of sheep. The crook, with which he can reach out beyond his natural reach to grasp the wayward member of his flock, with his golden crook, like any poor hard working shepherd would carry, a golden crook bedecked with jewels.

A golden crook bedecked with jewels.

A golden crook bedecked with jewels

See his magnificent white beard. This is a man who wears his great age well. He has not been broken and fatigued by hard work. His has been a life of piety, study and contemplation. Not graft and sweat like a farm horse. He is a great man. He has great learning, which he keeps to himself like the precious gift from the gods it is. He can read. He can write. He has been to university. He has been taught how to think and how to stop others from doing the same and usurping his special place as the holy man. The great and mighty wizard.

Mon, 2011-12-12 14:15 — Alastair (not verified)

It's a little rich of the religious to complain that an eloquent Oxbridge professor who's sold millions of books occasionally gets his voice aired in the media. Besides idiots hailing in the street about salvation, the agnostic/aetheist has to suffers religious programming on state funded networks, and unqualified outbursts on various areas of public and private life, given airtime without consideration. With school selection, we have our children discriminated against, but still unavoidably preached at; as bafflingly incosistent and socially devisive belief systems squander great swathes of the school curriculum. You can switch RD off as easily as I can switch off Songs of Praise.

Tue, 2011-12-13 00:02 — Christian (not verified)

@Mike

"That's your assertion. Any poorly taught class that relies on regurgitation can happen anywhere" - I was referring to the nature of the GCSE Religious Studies syllabus, were marks are given on the basis of a set of facts learnt. There is no incentive for the subject to be taught in any way beyond that from the perspective of a teacher teaching to the syllabus, and that's more of an issue with the exam boards than one with the way it's taught.

"their are secular school programs for these." - There are secular school programs for these.

"Theologically the Christian churches have a different idea of evolution where God supernaturally nudges everything. If you are Christian then the whole raison d'etre for Christ bound up with original sin, which falls apart if you don't have everyone descended from Adam & Eve." - it doesn't fall apart. I don't want to construct a complicated explanation for why its possible, and lets not have a theological argument, otherwise we're straying too far from the point...

"Not all parents have a non-faith school within reach of their community and are presented with the choice of having to somehow "fit in" to schools who barely tolerate such, or having to move house or transport children great distances each day." - Yes, I accept that this must be an issue, for a small number of people. However, by contrast, the situation will be far more common the other way round, and if anything there will be those who wish to receive an education in a Christian environment who are forced to go to state schools. The balancing question is do we place greater weight on the injustice of an individual having no option but to go to a faith school, or the injustice of individuals not being able to express their religious beliefs? And does that change if the latter is much more common than the former?

We live in a free society, where individuals are allowed to express their beliefs. Should we not fear a repression of that right more than other people being even mildly offended by their presence in society?

The point of state faith schools is giving a choice to those who are not wealthy. I would have been unable to afford to go to an independent faith school. But instead I commuted 4 hours a day (apologies - I'm not winging, I'm trying to iterate that there is a real demand for them!)for 5 years so that I could go to a school which had an ethos in accordance with my own. As a result of state faith schools, I had a real choice, and I genuinely appreciate that.

"Really? When teachers are giving children homework exercises about "meeting Jesus", "what does heaven look like?"etc etc" There was never any time when I was given a homework exercise even similar to those you have listed. Who would set it? My Biology teacher? My History teacher? No - why would they? They have a job to do, which is teach their subject. What benefit would it have been for a geography teacher to make me do a case study about the last supper when it was more pressing that I did one about the favelas of Rio de Janeiro? There wouldn't be one.

I attended the faith school between years 7 and 11, and as they didn't have a sixth form, I went to a state secular sixth form nearby instead. I'm still there now. So, thankfully, I have something to compare to "the normal experience". Because I've had both.

Tue, 2011-12-13 00:35 — Tim (not verified)

Dawkins is such a ONE ISSUE academic. Let's hear what he has to say on the economic state of the country, and the role bankers have played in wrecking the country...I bet most of them aren't religious!! Let's have your explanation for evil NOT occasioned by religions!

Sat, 2011-12-17 04:08 — Domnal (not verified)

To Niall Scott I would say . Anyone is entitled to speak out against any nonsense if they notice it..
And in this case Mr Dawkins is merely pointing out that Cameron believes in religion but not in god !!
It is so good for getting people to accept crap from governments but not recently !!

Mon, 2011-12-12 14:28 — K Rodgers (not verified)

The only difference between a religion and a cult is its size.

Mon, 2011-12-12 14:30 — vitalic (not verified)

All the religious idiots posting snide remarks should go and purchase the July edition guest edited by Rowan Williams if they want something that doesn't challenge their small-minded world view. Leave this edition to the more enlightened among us.

Mon, 2011-12-12 14:37 — Ian5

Dear Mel Davis: "Does Richard Dawkins think he's the religion nazi or something. I am sick of him and his disciples who don't believe in God trying to bully and belittle anyone who doesn't share his views."

Hey, we do not burn people at the stake, we do not hang or stone them for believing in god. for generations up to the present day, the atheist, or is it heretic, no wait, infidel, hang oh blasphemer oh you choose. has been and in some corners of the world still is abused for questioning the existence of a God.

Actually its the believers trying to bully society into buying their brand, be it knocking on my door, or using violence in the form of 747's or sitting in the house of lords and voting on legislation.

Tue, 2011-12-13 02:03 — emilio avalos (not verified)

ones again this great biologis with his rediculous religious monologues, many want to discuss this and other essues with this person, but would he? I don't think so :)

Tue, 2011-12-13 03:02 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

Tim, why on earth should we want to now what Dawkins thinks on economic questions? He knows nothing about them.

He knows precious little about philosophy either, judging by his views on Hume. Hume's views on HIM would be interesting, and amusing, to hear.

Tue, 2011-12-13 03:34 — Johnny Ordinary (not verified)

The prime minister is a fool to thing the increased power and funding he has given to set up academies will not be abused, and end up funding madrassas in the uk.Religion is a cause of division, not harmony, everyone thinks they are right, and that their particular sky fairy is right.The realy deluded ones are prepared to kill in the name of their gods,as an atheist, with no axe to grind against anyone who does not shove their faith in my face,that scares me.What i find annoying is the insistance of the religious in trying to "save" me.They just dont get it, by the time they realise they are wrong, they will not be in a position to realise anything.Professor Dawkins happens to be a leader in the field of evoloutionary genetics,and far better educated than any of the people posting here, including myself,im not to proud to admit it,many of those posting here are to proud and full of dogmas to realise how stupid they look.They are all for faith schools, so long as its their faith.David Cameron is a buffoon that thinks he can paper over societies inequalities by pushing religion, with its promise of suffer now ,cake later, The cake is a lie.the 70 virgins are a lie, the halls of valhalla are a lie, the heavenly bliss is a lie, the helfire and brimstone is a lie, Why is our prime minister pushing lies?Because he is a politician, and thats what they do.Well done to Richard Dawkins for having the balls to stand up and say his piece.I would trust him to apply more inteligence to formulating economic policies than any of the politicians and their vested interests.He is a man of integrity, the world need more like him.

Tue, 2011-12-13 04:06 — Matty D (not verified)

So, religion is fucking up your society, too?

Tue, 2011-12-20 12:22 — Frederick Christensen (not verified)

I wish to refute the mendacious bleatings of a blogger,I believe the name was Rebecca,who steadfastly claimed that God did not exist.God does exist but is not of this material world.God is spirit,omniscient and omnipotent and while I am somewhat irritated by the rampant Godlessness that appears in threads of this genre,especially anything involving the lol illustrious Richie Dawkins Esquire,I am reminded of the fact that toward the end of times Godlessness would smother Humankind and signal the ultimate end.This scenario was prophesized in the Bible and it is unfortunate that we have so many challenged little human creatures that are self proclaimed champions of lol,logic reasoning and the scientific way.From my perspective,Science lost it`s cherry a long time ago.Today we have sicko Science,Pseudo Science,JUNK SCIENCE and thankfully constructive conservative Science as well but the latter is under siege.I totally reject atheism because it is the depraved mindset of total fools!I could use much stronger profane language but I am sure the reader will get the drift.Evidence and proof of God`s existence is all around us if you will only peel away the scales that blind your very challenged and biased perspective.I would much rather place my faith in God than in challenged,puny and temporal Mankind and it`s puny Science.MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Mon, 2011-12-12 15:09 — Barnie (not verified)

"Thank God".

Though in my opinion you've missed one of the biggest issues. That of selection for VA schools on the basis of the parents active participation in a church.

Why should my child be explicitely discriminated against because his father is ahtiest and his mother a non-practising catholic who hasn't been in the area long enough to "qualify" even is she had been practising.

Try looking for a primary school in Putney or Richmond ( and elsewhere no doubt ), and see how discriminated against your children are if you're not actively involved in the relevant churches.

Why are everyone's taxes used equally to pay for schools which everyone's children aren't equally able to gain access to?

My 2yr old son's first exposes to the education system will be one shrouded in blatant and explicit discrimination. Not even against anything he has or hasn't done, but against what his parent's have and haven't done.

So there are good options for CofE and Catholics ( who meet the 2yr qualifying criteria ), and also one option for Muslims, but only a few lower achieving options which are open fairly for athiests, Hindus, Jews, etc..

It's utterly disgusting and something many people should be very angry about.

Mon, 2011-12-12 15:10 — Trevor (not verified)

Religion is the best form of social control yet invented. It conditions its credulous adherents to be docile and conformist to authority, whether that be the temporal or the celestial (or both).

It should come as no surprise then, that our political masters are ever keen to foist faith schools onto the kiddies to keep them on their knees (metaphorically as well as literally)in subservience to the powers that be.

No doubt some of the God-botherers posting here would love to see Darkins burned at the stake for his "blasphemous" views. Thankfully, thanks to science and the Enlightenment, the Dark Ages are over. Praise the Lord!

Mon, 2011-12-12 15:16 — Mike (not verified)

Dear Mel Davis: Richard Dawkins is against schools "trying to force your convictions down everyone's throat" as you would put it.

I know this does happen
http://ow.ly/7Ws6S

Tue, 2011-12-13 08:05 — Fox (not verified)

It was Labour and that closet catholic Blair, along with Labour's multicultural appeasement lobby that started this faith school nonsense.

Mon, 2011-12-12 15:19 — Fraziel (not verified)

depair when i read the hypocritical rubbish by the likes of mel davis. Don't like Dawkins? Don't read his books or listen to his speeches. Unlike the church he does not try and force his opinions on everyone from the age of 3. In some parts of the US you can;t get a job and are discriminated against if you are an atheist.The only bullies and people trying to force views on everyone in all aspects of life are the evidence denying indoctrinated sheep that are believers and the church.Dawkins might only have a theory but it is one supported by lots of compelling evidence, unlike the existence of God, which is supported by none.

Mon, 2011-12-12 15:21 — JC Not THE JC (not verified)

I totally agree with Richard Dawkins. No religion at all would be preferable, but if people want to worship invisible and imaginary beings/none beings, then why should none religious people have to fund them to do so and proliferate due to indoctrination from a young age. No religion in schools especially the single faith divisive kind.

Tue, 2011-12-13 09:20 — Noone (not verified)

God, being God, probably doesn't need to bother with mundane activities such as existing.

Mon, 2011-12-12 15:23 — J Hudson (not verified)

Anyone who defends religion has clearly not read it's texts fully.Those who take the time to examine the holy books and the history, must accept them to be myths.

Mon, 2011-12-12 15:30 — Barnie (not verified)

@Mel Davies As already posted, the entire population has religion forced down it's throats both explicitly and implicitly. Even going so far as to discriminate against 4yr old children about to enter the education system.

There are very few moderating or questioning influences, more are needed.

Mon, 2011-12-12 15:41 — Eamon (not verified)

Mel Davis
12 December 2011 at 12:03
Does Richard Dawkins think he's the religion nazi or something. I am sick of him and his disciples who don't believe in God trying to bully and belittle anyone who doesn't share his views

******************

Please show one example where Dawkin's has ever 'crammed' his opinion down someone's throat?

There's a little X at the top right hand corner of the browser if you don't like what you see.

You can put his book down if you don't like it.

The religious nearly always fail to give this option to children.

The point of discussion here is that faith schools cram magicalinsanedangerous ideas down kids throats, rather than stuff that isn't batshit crazy.