This is a continuation of a long standing project covered the issue of atheists attempting to indoctrinate both their own and other children into atheism—see archive at this link.
I thought to continue considering this issue as the latest round of atheist bus ads and atheist billboards has turned referring to the overwhelming majority of the world’s parents (throughout history) as “child abusers” and “brainwashers.”
Let us consider two articles one by the Internet Infidels and the second by the American Atheists.
With a premised of “An atheist friend of mine was worried that his children would turn out to be religious” the Internet Infidels wrote that “Children’s Education: Ideally it should start in early childhood.” Wow! What an insight! Children’s education should start in early childhood—tell us more Mr. Obvious :o)
Ok, I decided to begin his emotive and pointed topic with some humor—but they did state that!
Here is a fuller quotation as they did have a bit more to say on the matter,
Children’s Education: Ideally it should start in early childhood…most atheistic parents have the desire to educate their children to be atheists and since they know this education will not occur in the public schools, they think in terms of home education.
With the statement about public schools I most certainly disagree 100%. In public school not only are references to God illegal (with the exception of that which is in the Pledge) but the only reference to God they are likely to hear is in the negative; which is not only legal but virtually part of the curriculum. Indeed, by the time they graduate college they will have gone through the atheist catechism numerous times as positive references to God are litigiously removed from each and every subject.
In fact, atheists specifically weave atheist propaganda into “science” textbooks (see Protecting the Science Classroom for evidence); they preach atheism in the guise of teaching science. When asked, “What’s most important to you: advancing atheism or advancing the public understanding of science – or are they kind of one in the same for you?” PZ Myers stated, “They are inseparable.” Likewise, Richard Dawkins makes “evolution” and “science” synonymous with atheism.
The Internet Infidels continue:
However, although this home education in being an atheist is certainly desirable, it must done in such a way that children don’t rebel. Nothing should be forced or unpleasant or else atheist parents, to their dismay may find their children embracing evangelical Christianity.’
Perhaps the best sort of home education for children should not seem like education at all: Let them simply pick up the attitudes and ways of thought of their atheistic parents from causal conversations and day-to-day living…informal and unconscious education…
Subliminal education is more like it; this encourages atheist parents to be more outspoken against “religion” in front of their children with an aim at influencing/indoctrinating them.
Moreover, they encourage the reading of books that seek to discredit “seemingly supernatural and paranormal phenomena” some of which are “directly relevant to religion” so that kids who are not sufficiently prepared to think critically will, from a tender age, be indoctrinated to reject the supernatural while not realizing that the atheism of their parents, the atheism which they are supposed to inherit, is likewise premised upon supernaturalism in the form of metaphysics.
In this regard, they conclude that “Such books should aim to present the evidence and arguments for atheism and not present atheism as another dogma.” Although, they do not here define “atheism”: 1) if it is a positive affirmation of God’s non-existence then it is a dogma since it is un-evidenced and absolute 2) if it is a mere lack of believe in god(s) which asserts that we cannot know whether or not god(s) exist(s) then it is a dogma since it is un-evidenced and absolutely and positively affirms that we cannot know either way.
One recommendation was particularly hair-raising:
Children raised in atheistic homes should be exposed to religion…on TV…but initially only with the guidance of an atheistic parent who encourages the child to ask critical questions. For example, a family project might be to watch a TV preacher, see how many unsupported or dubious claims he or she makes, and consider what type of evidence, if any, could support or refute these claims.
Indeed! The very thought of my children watching a televangelist makes my skin crawl. Indeed, I would watch it with them and elucidate who very many of their views conflict with scripture. Note that it is unlikely that a televangelist would present evidence because 1) they are generally not conducting expository Bible studies but are cherry-picking those half verses here and there that purport to support their claims and 2) even more Bible based expositors on TV are preaching, quite literally, to the choir and are therefore presuppositional.
They could watch shows such as John Ankerberg’s apologetics/evidence based program (or others of which I am not aware since I do not have cable/satellite). Yet, the point of the Internet Infidels is to have the atheist parents lead their children towards the very same conclusions they have reached—conclusions to which many of them came in childhood and have not developed since.
As a part of “atheistic education at home” the Internet Infidels also recommend watching “Bill Nye: The [atheism disguised as] Science Guy.”
The Internet Infidels then go from the home to atheist Sunday Schools, summer camps and churches:
Home education is not the only type of atheistic education for children, however. There is also the equivalent of an atheist Sunday school. Here instruction takes place in some atheistic or rationalistic center. One good example of this is the work done at the North Texas Church of Freethought…This is a real church with community spirit, uplifting sermons, church socials, a singles group, and Sunday school—except that there is no mention of God…the church’s Youth Education Director and runs two Sunday school classes—one for children from infancy to 5 years old and another for children from 6 years to 14 years
One of the Sunday School lessons is to teach atheist children that Christians are their enemies thus, inculcating an us versus them, suspicion raising and prejudice based mentality as they are taught, “how atheistic boys should deal with being bullied by Christian boys.”
Another example of atheistic education for children outside the home is a humanist summer camp, called Camp Quest…The children are taught that there are no gods, devils, heaven or hell…
This is refreshingly honest as Camp Quest and its supporters have labored diligently to deny that it is an atheist camp to indoctrinate children; although the parents who send their children there are very honest about their aims (dig beneath the media campaign surface and see Camp Quest exposed for that which it is: here).
Let us end on this note:
The prospects for atheistic education are closely tied to the prospects of atheism movement as a whole. Although progress is being made too few atheistic groups have the equivalent of Sunday schools and adult education programs. Better and more children’s books need to written, and more extensive certification programs are needed. In short, atheistic educators have done well with limited resources. But they need our support to do more and better work.
The American Humanists makes reference to an atheist book for children and state:
I read this book to the campers at the Mini Camp Quest session at the Atheist Alliance International Conference…As for whether the book will help normalize atheism, only time will tell….One way I think it will help is that kids from non-religious families can add a story about an atheist family to their bookshelves. Whether it helps normalize atheism in broader society will depend on it being carried by libraries and bookstores, and being read by families who do not identify as atheists…
Overall, so much for “Hey preacher, leave those kids alone.” I, for one, teach my children that other people do not believe like we and that we are to teat others as we want to be treated, that God created all people in His image and that therefore, we are to love all people and have no right to violate anyone.
On the following premise the American Atheists recommend how to go about raising atheists:
I often get requests for advice from parents who wish to raise their children without religion, or who at least want to provide a religion -free influence in the lives of their children…I have what I think are some pretty good ideas on raising nonreligious children…
Thus, they offer recommendations as to how to, “make raising an Atheist child easy” and ask for more recommendations, “Got more suggestions on raising an Atheist child? Send them up!”
Note the paint with a broom approach:
Address the issues of gods as common nouns. There is not one god, there are many. Thousands in fact, all the same and all fictional. Talk about Zeus, Qetzalcoatl, Thor, and Jesus. Explain how these gods were used in the past (to answer unknowns), how followers of these gods were absolutely positive of the god’s existence, and how they even killed in their names. As gods got old, new gods came along, for no real reason other than a need for change and the progress of science. Now, there are far fewer gods left, and many people still believe in them, for the same reasons they believed in ancient Tiki gods. In my house, I have a sculpture of Neptune on the wall. In the sculpture, Neptune is blowing on a ship, filling its sails. My four-year-old and I talk about it often. How silly those people were – to think that an old man in the sky was watching them, and blowing their ship along the ocean!
By equating all gods and mythologies in their minds, they will be more skeptical when someone tells them that one of them is real.
[6] Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Matilda Joslyn Gage and Ida Husted Harper, History of Woman Suffrage, p. 95
This is a very honest militant atheist sort of approach: tell the kids that regardless of the theistic claim, they are “all the same and all fictional”—this is logically and theologically bankrupt. It is urged that the kids become scared of those people, an emotive appeal to foster an us versus them prejudicial mentality, as “they even killed in their names.”
I could see it now, the four-year-old wants to eat crackers off of the floor or play with something and here comes good ol′ daddy stating:
Now son/daughter let us bask in our supreme erudition and laugh at those very dangerous and superstitious people—ha ha, and ha, ha, ha!
Oh, by the way; the universe and absolutely everything it is an accident which occurred when nothing caused an eternally existent uncaused piece of matter to exploded and made everything for no reason. You are nothing but a glorified animal whose purpose is to reproduce your DNA. Life came in to being, by chance or, as our hero Richard Dawkins states it “luck,” when lightning struck a swamp. Oh yeah, there are not ethical imperative but be nice. And when you die you are annihilated and your corpse will become worm food. Sweet dreams!
The key statement is “By equating all gods and mythologies in their minds, they will be more skeptical when someone tells them that one of them is real”; they are pre-programmed to place all metaphysic claims into one quaint and fallacious little box. Consider that theism and atheism are both ultimately metaphysically premised. Thus, by equating theism and atheism they will be more skeptical when someone tells them that one of them is real; fair enough. But this is not the point, the point is that this statement neglects to consider natural theology which is seeking to ascertain whether there is a cause, a creator, of the universe via science and philosophy—via our observation and musing. Through natural theology we can make a case for a creator, discern some of the creator’s characteristics and even discern between various supernatural claims: such as I did with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.
The American Atheists continue:
Teach them magic tricks. As early as I can remember, my dad gave me magic tricks to astound my friends. I would tell them “There’s no trick – it’s Magic!” All the while, I knew those who believed it were being fooled. I learned that there is always a trick, always an explanation, even if I didn’t know what it was at the time. Sound familiar?
Yes it does: 1) this is a very good point but we must be careful to not fall into the trap of presupposing atheism, or absolute materialism, because this can lead to rejecting any and every claim to evidence of design by merely restricting our thinking, not following evidence where it leads and adhering to materialism by simply saying, “Someday, yes surely someday, we will uncover the materialistic explanation, and explain the explanation and the explanation of the explanation, scientists are working on it” and 2) as I explained in my essay Atheism and Science – The Magus an atheist can, metaphorically speaking, reverse engineer the trick but only far back enough to explain its mechanics while the theist can go further and seek to ascertain the trick’s conceiver—the creator’s intelligent design.
Also:
Get some hands-on, face-to-face charity in there. Show them how good it feels to help someone. Tell them this is the Atheist way (which is true) – hands that do are much better than lips that pray. On a related note, see if you can find people on TV who are praying instead of helping, and point it out.
If not before, by now you can see how very empty claims to merely being interested in getting kids to think critically turns into an activist atheist indoctrination in prejudice. Firstly, note that the motivation to help someone is not that they need help but that it will make you feel good. Yes, the person in need is being helped but it is a selfish and ulteriorlly motivated act (as I noted in detail here).
I did not know that there was any such thing as “the” “Atheist way” but certainly understand that atheists think that their—one and only, “the”—way is true and all others false. It is also being encouraged to think in a quaint little box of prepackaged atheist talking point inspired groupthink: “hands that do are much better than lips that pray” and hands that do, in conjunction with lips that pray, are much better than merely selfish hand that do and do for selfish reasons.
In fact, the American Atheists got this right out of the Bible:
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?…
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also (James 2:14-20, 26).
Only praying and speaking to them about getting their needs filled is nothing without doing something.
Note also that while you are trying to poison your child’s mind with prejudice as you “see if you can find people on TV who are praying instead of helping” you can also say,
Oh, gee, I guess that if I were honest and if I were really and merely teaching critical thinking I would not be hypocritically watching TV, channel surfing, in order to point out that those people are praying instead of helping while watching TV instead of helping people.
Meanwhile, atheists collect tremendous amounts of money in order to purchase anti-Christian bus ads and billboards while those Christians whom they condemn are busy establishing, administering and funding homeless shelters, soup kitchens, disaster relief organizations, hospitals, adoption agencies, foster homes, addiction clinics, etc., etc., etc.
Lastly, note that the American Atheists state that the USA is a, note the terminology, a “Christian-dominated nation” and thus, kids will recognize that most people are not like them. Thus,
it’s important to set up ideals and role models for children to admire…Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, and Susan B. Anthony come to mind.
Thomas Edison was a neo-Pagan atheist as he wrote the following in reference to an article about him,
You have misunderstood the whole article, because you jumped to the conclusion that it denies the existence of God. There is no such denial, what you call God I call Nature, the Supreme intelligence that rules matter.
There is certainly much about Edison to admire such as his view that “Nonviolence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.”[1] This he believed even whilst stating that “nature is not kind, or merciful, or loving.”[2] Thus, we see an early example of a neo-Pagan atheist who appointed himself arbiter of evolution (which continues today; see Memetic Eugenics and the Evolutionary Watchmen). Also, do not forget to quote to your kids Edison’s racist and anti-Semitic statements—which are not surprising considering that he believed that human beings [are] only an aggregate of cells and the brain only a wonderful machine.[3]
Albert Einstein stated:
I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.[4]
Susan B. Anthony “made veiled, slippery racist comments…refused to speak out against lynching?…formed a separate ‘suffrage’ organization against the vote for African-American men…Anthony asked for censorship of all history that ‘reflected badly on others’ from her biography.”[5]
Anthony seemed to excuse racism or perhaps saw it as utilitarian as she once stated, “Why should we not accept all in favor of woman suffrage to our platform and association even though they be rabid pro-slavery Democrats?”[6]
We do not have to pretend that someone was perfect in order to admire them and be inspired by them. For example, the Bible presents both its heroes and villains with warts and all.
Now, after encouraging kids to develop a us (the erudite and helpful) versus them (the ignorant and helpless) bigoted mentality the American Atheists go on to state:
As far as those other kids are concerned, your main problem will be bigotry…teach them to combat it, either actively or passively…the purveyors of bigotry will only know that they should think Atheists are bad [or “Atheists are ‘evil’”]…Role playing helps. Pretend you’re the bigoted kid and write down what he might say and the corresponding answers.
Stick to the surface level what’s wrong with that? all you want; I notice that kids are being prepped to view theists as their enemies. Also, see what I meant about the atheist catechism (in part 1)? Role play: when they say this, you say that.
I appreciate honesty and the Internet Infidels and American Atheists are very honest, at least in the two articles we have considered in this parsed essay. When considering the surface level claims of concern for free thought and free choice of children as they seek to rescue them from “child abusers” or “brainwasher” remember that what lies beneath the surface is atheist doing the very same things which they condemn.
The jig is up! Actually, it was up before it even became a jig.
Go back to seventy years when:
Lewis, in his prophetic work The Abolition of Man, critiqued an English textbook, written in the 1940’s, which was designed for school children. Lewis found that more than English was being taught in this book, for the authors rejected objective truth and traditional values and proclaimed a type of moral relativism. Lewis expressed concern for two reasons.
First, the children who read this textbook would be easy prey to its false teachings. Second, this would lead to a culture built on moral relativism and the rejection of objective truth, something that, according to Lewis, has not existed in the history of mankind. [7]
Indeed, jump to virtually any period in history and there they are.
As previously reported both Internet Infidels and American Atheists (see links to previous parts below) make is very clear that their goal is not merely to oh so innocently inspire their children towards critical thinking but that they want them to become atheists (much more relevant evidence is found here).
If you consider commenting by authoring a tu quoque (properly pronounced by pinching one’s nose and in a whiny tone saying, “You-oooooooooo do it too- oooooooooo”) keep in mind that a tu quoque is just that—illogical. Atheists cannot shrug off the fact of the hypocrisy of those who cry “child abuse” and “brain washer” against religious parents when they do the same things.
Now further evidence has been uncovered as promulgated by Atheist Activist (group reported about under “Atheist Activist” – driving a wedge between decent people and road side memorials).
In their Actions page they list Raise Kids as Atheists which leads to the page “Raising Children as Freethinkers”—a “Freethinker” is an atheist who is ashamed to admit it :o)
Atheist Activist writes:
Many nontheists agree with Richard Dawkins that “‘Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of having been brought up Catholic in the first place.”
If you choose to raise your children as freethinkers, there are plenty of resources available to you and your children.
These include, “Be an Atheist Parent,” “Godless Children…,” “Raising Secular Children,” “AtheistParents,” “Parenting Little Heathens,” (ok, I can relate to this one—on one level).
There is also, “Camp Quest” (which I exposed here), and “Mission of Scouting For All” which seeks to “advocate on behalf of its members and supporters for the restoration of the traditionally unbiased values of Scouting as expressed and embodied in the Scout Oath & the Scout Law, and to influence the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to serve and include as participating members ALL youth and adult leaders, regardless of their spiritual belief, gender, or sexual orientation.”
So, please write to them and tell them to hide this page as they are giving up the goods.
Notes:
[1] Sarah Miller Caldicott, Michael J. Gelb, Innovate Like Edison: The Success System of America’s Greatest Inventor, p. 37
[2] Edward Marshall, ““No Immortality Of The Soul” Says Thomas A. Edison,” New York Times, October 2, 1910 [3] Ibid. [4] “What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck,” The Saturday Evening Post, Oct. 26, 1929
[5] Art Lemasters, “Who’s Lying to You About Early Feminism? – Susan B. Anthony: Racist Manipulator,” MND, August 21, 2003
[6] Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Matilda Joslyn Gage and Ida Husted Harper, History of Woman Suffrage, p. 95
[7] Dr. Phil Fernandes, “The Death of God, Truth, Morality, and Man,” Institute of Biblical Defense – Upholding and Defending the Christian Faith referencing C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: Collier Books, 1947), pp. 16-17, 23, 28-29
Is Chubaka a Democrat or is he a Republican
