Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

[Ray de Galles]

I'm not actually sure the message will get across through the billboards alone.

[Toby Gymshorts]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

"Please won't somebody think of the children" - Rich, 23 February 2009

Well played, Rich.

[Ginger Yellow]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

I wouldn't be surprised if people thought it was a Benneton ad.

[Bored Of Education]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

I can't help feeling that they are going to get further with bus posters of their spokesperson Ariane Sherine



than posters of kids and documentaries by Professor Chuckles

[Ray de Galles]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

Yes, when did she hot up so much?;



I thought my newest crush Shappi Khorsandi had got on board the campaign for a moment.

[Bored Of Education]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

Typical

There is no original thought on the internet



What's the deal with these Rational Response lot? Something about an atheist group led by a legal prostitute or something?

Dickie Dawkins certainly seems on board or is it a Christian wind-up?

[Brandenburger Toro]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

See, I had no real problem with the first campaign, but this one is just dumb.

Raising kids "neutral" isn't neutral, it's already making a decision. And it's not as though kids don't get to make a choice later in life, it's just that most will choose what others think is the wrong option. That isn't not dchoosing - it's possible for perfectly rational people to disagree with you.

[Ray de Galles]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

Toro: Count On It wrote:

Raising kids "neutral" isn't neutral

Er, really?

Is this like "attempt to" again?

[hobbes]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

here you are Toro. Have a go at these.

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.

[Hofzinser]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

Toro, do you agree that it's absurd to talk of monetarist children or post-strucuturalist children?

If so, why is religion different in this respect?

[Brandenburger Toro]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

Hof - neither monetarism/post-structuralism, nor the views opposing them, claim to play any role in the social or ethical formation of a person. They're entirely theoretic positions which don't enter into the existence of a child. Nor, indeed, of most adults. This just isn't the case for religion, nor - as the ads show - for opponents of religion.

Harry - yeah, really. That's why I put in inverted commas. There's no neutral position here, and for atheists/agnostics to claim that theirs is a neutral default is just as pernicious and wrong as for medieval christans to claim the same.

hobbes - the first three are the result of poor socialisation and religious education, not of religious education per se. The fourth is something that only seems a problem if you are already hostile to religion; but we fully expect children to conform to most of their parents' beliefs about right and wrong, science, whatever. The fifth applies equally to bringing up children without religion, it's just that the writers lie the consequences in that case. And the sixth would apply equally - perhaps more forcibly - whether or not the kids were raised religiously, as long as the parents were religious.

Look, if I argued that atheists should bring their children up Catholic, and "let them choose" whether or not they wanted to be atheists when they got older, you'd all think I was a mentalist. Why is this different?

[EIM]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

Because you're not born a Catholic. You're born without religious beliefs.

[Ray de Galles]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

I'm not at all sure I'm bringing my children up as atheists (in the sense of having made a firm decision about the existence of a god) though.

[Brandenburger Toro]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

Yeah, but nor are you born knowing how to add. We expect and allow parents to teach their kids, and/or to provide for their kids being taught, their best understanding of the world.

[Ray de Galles]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

Toro: Count On It wrote:

Hof - neither monetarism/post-structuralism, nor the views opposing them, claim to play any role in the social or ethical formation of a person.

Does socialism? Can you have a socialist child?

[Wyatt Earp]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

Toro, at least argue with your opponents' actual position. The bus poster quite explicitly, and prominently, counts "atheist" as among the labels that ought not to be applied to children. You may think that's not coherent--I disagree--but you can't claim they're claiming a special status for atheism.

Your claim that religion is central to the formation of an ethic begs the question big time, of course.

[Brandenburger Toro]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

I don't know what you're doing, Harry. I presume you're bringing them up in a manner which reflects your beliefs, or their mothers, or some compromise between the two.

Which, I would argue, is the only reasonable way to bring them up.

Wyatt - at least argue with my actual position. I'm saying, explicitly, that the campaign is idiotic because of its claim to "neutrality", which I think is absurd and patently misrepresents what is actually involved.

Your claim that religion is central to the formation of an ethic begs the question big time, of course.

If I had claimed that, then perhaps. But I didn't.

[WOM]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

Toro: Count On It wrote:

Wyatt - at least argue with my actual position. I'm saying, explicitly, that the campaign is idiotic because of its claim to "neutrality", which I think is absurd and patently misrepresents what is actually involved.

Well, I think there's something in that. If you bring them up in a true 'we'll tell you nothing until you're 18' fashion, you're bringing them up atheist, in effect.

Really, the goal of the campaign is as achievable as, say, agreeing to bring them up without deciding their first language for them. If they want to speak English or French or German when they turn 18, so be it. But even if you choose to use sign language instead, you've made a choice.

[EIM]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

I dunno about that, WOM. I wasn't brought up in a religious househole, but I did attend a CofE primary shcool and Sunday school. I made up my own mind is was a load of guff.

[Brandenburger Toro]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

Harry Truscott wrote:

Toro: Count On It wrote:

Hof - neither monetarism/post-structuralism, nor the views opposing them, claim to play any role in the social or ethical formation of a person.

Does socialism? Can you have a socialist child?

That's a really good question, actually. I guess my answer would be "sorta".

[WOM]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

EIM wrote:

I dunno about that, WOM. I wasn't brought up in a religious househole, but I did attend a CofE primary shcool and Sunday school. I made up my own mind is was a load of guff.

I think I'm confused. I don't know how going to Sunday school is compatible with not being brought up in a religious household. Non-religious households don't send their kids to schools run by the church of anything, nor do they send their kids to Sunday school.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

I wasn't brought up in a religious househole

Fantastic.

[Ray de Galles]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

My wife and I are both atheists but we're certainly not actively bringing up the children as atheists.

They (unfortunately) attend schools with a Christian viewpoint and have Christian relatives so the issue of religion comes up. I've discussed it with my 7 year old who seems to be weighing up the options, sometimes saying she believes in a god and sometimes that she doesn't. Her younger sister just asked "What am I if I believe in fairies" so she was a pagan for ten minutes.

[Ray de Galles]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

Toro: Count On It wrote:

Wyatt - at least argue with my actual position. I'm saying, explicitly, that the campaign is idiotic because of its claim to "neutrality", which I think is absurd and patently misrepresents what is actually involved.

Does the campaign use the word "neutrality", actually?

I actually think the posters are a bit wishy-washy but the main issue the BHA are promoting is that of opposition to faith schools more than the idea of parents introducing children to religion at home.

[EIM]

Atheist Bus Campaign - The Sequel!

TonTon wrote:

I wasn't brought up in a religious househole

Fantastic.

What's even more fantastic is that I noticed that mistake, corrected it, and seemingly hit 'e' again.

WOM - Neither of my parents are religious. My Mum is an atheist, and my Dad was a born again Christian when he was younger, but now doesn't give a fuck about any of that guff, and hasn't for decades. The Sunday School thing was odd, yeah, but probably promoted by the school. Or just to give them a few hours without us on a Sunday morning so they could drink gin and screw.