If you live in the U.K, you will soon come across this Billboard from the BHA (British Human Society). Paul Woolley, from Evangelical Alliance has written a piece on this issue at FNT (Friday Night Theology).
This is a progression from their Bus campaign ‘There’s probably no God’ which, ‘probably’ had the positive effect of people thinking there might be a God?
According to the humanist billboard site, the campaign will indirectly support Humanist views through the BHA, of which Richard Dawkins is one of their most famous supporters.
And one of their main reasons for this Billboard campaign:
‘One of the issues raised again and again by donors to the campaign was the issue of children having the freedom to grow up and decide for themselves what they believe, and that we should not label children with any ideology,’ said Ariane Sherine, original creator of the Atheist Bus Campaign. ‘I hope this poster campaign will encourage the government, media and general public to see children as individuals, free to make their own choices, and accord them the liberty and respect they deserve.’
And,
We believe that labelling children is divisive because it:
•leads to segregation, either socially (as in faith schools) and even interpersonally (between children who are told they “belong” to different and incompatible religions)
•restricts learning about other beliefs because the child told that they “belong” to x religion may rule out other options or become hostile to them
•creates negative attitudes to other people’s beliefs, because labelling has the effect of making a belief seem “intrinsic” to the individual child, rendering those of other religions intrinsically different and ‘Other’
We also believe that labelling children is coercive because it:•places an expectation on the child to conform to her parents beliefs
•removes choice and decreases autonomy by limiting the options available; by constraining the child to think that their religion is “a given”.
•can act as a threat, either because there is an implied risk of parental disassociation if the child rejects the religious beliefs, or because inherent in the religion itself are explicit metaphysical dangers (judgment, Hellfire etc) associated with disbelief or apostasy.
There is also an indirect aim, to draw attention and support to the work of the BHA
Paul Woolley from Evangelical Allinace writes:
What the British Humanist Association defines as neutral is in fact non-religious and even anti-religious. As Richard Dawkins, one of the sponsors of the campaign when it launched last year, has remarked ‘We urgently need to raise consciousnesses on this issue. Nobody would seriously describe a tiny child as a “Marxist child” or an “Anarchist child” or a “Post-modernist child”. Yet children are routinely labelled with the religion of their parents. We need to encourage people to think carefully before labelling any child too young to know their own opinions and our adverts will help to do that.’
However, this is the same Professor Dawkins who has said ‘It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, “mad cow” disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.’ It doesn’t sound like Professor Dawkins is so willing to let children grow up and choose for themselves after all. Indeed, on his logic, if religious faith really is so evil, it’s absolutely imperative that he doesn’t just let children choose, but actively warns them of it.
The poster, then, is superficially appealing, but largely on an emotional level. How often have you heard the word ‘label’ used positively about anybody? On a more rational level, however, is it is based on some seriously flawed ideas.
Firstly, it assumes that there is a position of philosophical neutrality out there, a value-neutral cultural space in which children can grow up. The suggestion is dubious, to put it kindly. Families, communities, and societies – and the institutions in them – are all shaped by a certain set of values and assumptions, particular and personal ideas about what is and is not good. The question is not whether or not we want children to grow up with values or no values, but which values we want to nurture in them.
Secondly, a value-neutral culture is not only impossible, it is thoroughly undesirable. It’s unthinkable, for example, that we would want our children to grow up in a culture that takes a neutral position on questions of race or gender. I’ve not heard anyone suggest that children should simply be left to decide whether or not racism is acceptable without any encouragement or guidance. Children should be taught to grow up respecting equally all people, regardless of ethnicity. And that is not a neutral, value-free position. Social Darwinists, for example, would have deemed it intellectually flawed, morally ugly and socially undesirable.
Thirdly, the British Humanist Association is, I think, being disingenuous. It’s interesting and honest that, included among the labels in the background of the poster, are the terms ‘Humanist Child’, ‘Modernist Child’, ‘Libertarian Child’ and ‘Agnostic Child’. The poster rightly recognises that these are ideological, even faith positions. The poster appears to make the case that the brainwashing or labelling of children into any of these philosophies is as undesirable as nurturing them in Christianity or any other of the world’s major religions. The reality, however, is rather different. It’s no accident that the associated campaign poster is ‘No faith schools’.
Thinking rationally, Dawkins has a hidden agenda and the Humanist Association is the ideal vehicle for him to spout his anti religion, better anti Christian values to the public. This campaign is not particularly aimed at letting children make their up own minds on religion, free from outside influences.
The BHA campaigns:
•to phase out ‘faith’ schools, in favour of inclusive schools with no religious admissions policies
•for reform of RE (Religious Education), in favour of balanced teaching about different beliefs and values
•for a repeal of the legal requirement of ‘collective worship’ which applies even in community schools
•against Creationism and pseudo-science especially the threat they represent to good teaching in schools
•for wider improvements to values and moral education across the school curriculum; improved Sex and Relationships Education, Citizenship Education and inclusion of Philosophy
and,
We fundraised for this post last year, too, and since then we have:
•managed to get the government to agree to teach evolution in primary school science lessons in England for the first time
•supported successful legal action against discriminatory admissions policies
•supported successful local campaigns against the expansion in the provision of faith schools, such as in Swanage, Dorset.
So the BHA have managed to, have evolution taught in primary schools as Fact! and they want creationism out of schools (see above) and the inclusion of philosophy in school curriculum. But I thought the whole idea of the campaign was to let the child decide and be free from restrictive or oppressive teachings?
It seems that the BHA want to get rid of one set of Values and thoughts (basically, remove God) and replace it with their form of Atheism.
Random Posts
Loading…
