In case you’re wondering about part two of my religion vs. theism series, it’s in the works. And now, without further ado:
A few days ago, I posted this tweet:
What about secular crap? Is that okay? https://t.co/SgEs66lUMu
— Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) January 15, 2020
A fellow named Blue Collar Heathen then asked me for a good example of secular crap. So I gave as an example Nicholas Humphrey’s 1997 Amnesty International lecture. In a thesis to warm the cockles of Richard Dawkins’ heart, he argues that the state should take children away from religious parents. Seriously, that’s what he says.
Here is an excerpt:
“children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense. And we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible, or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children’s teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.”
So who gets to define “nonsense” in this Orwellian vision?
Secularists like Humphrey, of course! They decide what is “nonsense” and thus what we should “protect children” from. Here’s my question: who will protect the children from people like Humphrey?