<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><title>Michael Jay Lissner</title><link href="https://michaeljaylissner.com/" rel="alternate"></link><link href="https://michaeljaylissner.com/feeds/tag/atheism" rel="self"></link><id>https://michaeljaylissner.com/</id><updated>2008-03-09T10:34:27-07:00</updated><entry><title>My Child Is NOT Catholic</title><link href="https://michaeljaylissner.com/posts/2008/03/09/my-child-is-not-catholic-dawkins-insists/" rel="alternate"></link><updated>2008-03-09T10:34:27-07:00</updated><author><name>Mike Lissner</name></author><id>tag:michaeljaylissner.com,2008-03-09:posts/2008/03/09/my-child-is-not-catholic-dawkins-insists/</id><summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt="Dawkins" src="https://michaeljaylissner.com/images/dawkins.jpg" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I had the pleasure of going to see &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins"&gt;Richard Dawkins&lt;/a&gt; last night at Cal. 
Although our fourth-row seating probably influenced my judgement, 
I must say he is a truly excellent&amp;nbsp;speaker. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I finished his book, &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion"&gt;&lt;em&gt;The God Delusion&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; several months ago, 
and I had to agree with a friend who said he was a bit &amp;#8220;heavy-handed&amp;#8221; in 
the book. So when I went to see him in person, I expected much the same. I 
expected him to push me, to drive his point, to be a little bit too 
aggressive in his delivery. To the contrary though, he is a subtle, 
interesting, humble, and actually quite a funny&amp;nbsp;speaker. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In his speech, he engaged in &amp;#8220;consciousness raising&amp;#8221;, 
which he believes worked for feminism, and which he believes will work for 
religion. His example was that as a result of feminist consciousness 
raising, if I say: &amp;#8220;All men are created equal&amp;#8221;, you might think: &amp;#8220;Right, 
but what about the women?&amp;#8221; He wants to apply this tool to religion, 
so if I say: &amp;#8220;A Catholic child&amp;#8221;, you think: &amp;#8220;Children aren&amp;#8217;t Catholics - 
They&amp;#8217;re too young to know where they stand on such&amp;nbsp;issues.&amp;#8221; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He believes (and I must agree) that religion in the world has brought much 
violence and destruction, and that the whole thing could be cut off at the 
stem if we all realized that our children do not share our religion. I&amp;#8217;m 
simplifying and combining several of his points, but that was really the 
thrust of his speech. If I am a catholic, that does not make my child a 
catholic; I a Muslim, does not make my child a Muslim.&amp;nbsp;Etc.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To drive his point home, Dawkins showed a picture that he said he found on 
the Christmas cover of the &lt;span class="caps"&gt;UK&lt;/span&gt;&amp;#8217;s &lt;a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/"&gt;Telegraph Newspaper&lt;/a&gt;. In the picture, 
were three children sitting side by side in costume for some Christmas event
(I think they were the three wise men or some such). The idea behind the 
picture was to depict religious harmony. To quote his&amp;nbsp;book:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At Christmas-time one year my daily newspaper, the Independent, 
was looking for a seasonal image and found a heart-warmingly ecumenical one
at a school nativity play. The Three Wise Men were played by, 
as the caption glowingly said, Shadbreet (a Sikh), 
Musharraf (a Muslim) and Adele (a Christian), all aged four. Charming? 
Heart-warming? No, it is not, it is neither; it is grotesque. [&amp;#8230;] Imagine 
an identical photograph, with the caption changed as follows: &amp;#8220;Shadbreet (a 
Keynesian), Musharaff (a Monetarist) and Adele (a Marxist), 
all aged four.&amp;#8221; Wouldn&amp;#8217;t this be a candidate for irate letters of protest? 
It certainly should&amp;nbsp;be.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I can&amp;#8217;t say that I&amp;#8217;m one to really get &amp;#8220;irate&amp;#8221; about such things, 
but he really does have a point. The number of people that grow up to be the
same religion as their parents is astounding. How can it be that the 
religion of all peoples&amp;#8217; parents around the world just happens to be the 
right one for their children? It defies&amp;nbsp;logic.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So Dawkins believes that if we raise consciousness in a similar way to 
feminism, and find a way to allow children to be nontheists until they are 
old enough to make such decisions on their own, we might just be able to 
beat thi  religion thing. We might be able to curb religious violence by 
allowing children to make their own&amp;nbsp;choices. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It could work, and I for one am officially convinced that I will not let 
people speak of religious&amp;nbsp;children. &lt;/p&gt;</summary><category term="me"></category><category term="atheism"></category><category term="Cal"></category></entry></feed>