Peter Hitchens on teaching children to be religous

Lots for contributors to impdec to disagree with here I'm sure:

"It is notable that the work of my brother, Christopher Hitchens, and that of Richard Dawkins coincide closely on one striking point. My brother devotes a chapter in his 2007 book God Is Not Great to the question "Is religion child abuse?" Amid a multitude of fulminations about circumcision, masturbation and frightening children with stories of hell, he lets slip what I suspect is his actual point: "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world." This is perfectly true, as is his earlier statement that "the obsession with children, and with rigid control over their upbringing, has been part of every system of absolute authority." There is a revealing assumption buried in these statements and also in the opening part of the chapter, in which he says, "We can be sure that religion has always hoped to practise upon the unformed and undefended minds of the young, and has gone to great lengths to make sure of this privilege by making alliances with secular powers in the material world." Does he realize that he is here describing Soviet Communism?

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins too has a lengthy section on "Physical and Mental Abuse." He recounts how "in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place."

The word "abuse" used here by both Richard Dawkins and my brother is far stronger than it first seems to be. In modern Britain and slightly less so in the United States, an accusation of "child abuse" is devastating to the accused. It is almost universally assumed to be true. Juries and the media are instantly prejudiced against the defendant before any evidence has been heard. To suggest that any person so charged may be innocent is to risk being accused of abuse oneself.

To use the expression "child abuse" in this context is to equate such education with a universally hated crime. If Professor Dawkins genuinely believes what he said to the Dublin audience, then he should logically believe that "bringing the child up Catholic" should be a criminal offence attracting a long term of imprisonment and public disgrace. If he does not mean this, what does he mean by the use of such wildly inflated language, and what is he trying to achieve by it?

And what is my brother doing in his competing anti-theist volume? Interestingly, he does not really answer his own inquiry. The chapter drains away into some ramblings on the subject of evolution, circumcision, masturbation, and the actual sexual abuse of children by Roman Catholic priests. I will not be trapped into defending them; their actions were atrocious, particularly because of who and what they were, and the Roman Catholic Church has been feeble in dealing with them. But it can hardly be claimed that they were the only people ever to abuse children sexually or cover it up, or that they were in any way following the dictates of their church. State-run homes for children have no doubt had their share of sexual abuse, but this has never been used as an argument against the existence of the state, nor would it be a very good argument if it were.

The use of this claim that religious instruction is a form of child abuse in an argument for atheism is propaganda, not reason. We read to the young, show them beautiful things, introduce them to good manners, warn them against dangers, teach them their letters and multiplication tables, and make them learn poetry by heart, precisely because they are most impressionable in childhood -- and therefore best able to learn these things then, in many cases long before they can possibly understand why they matter. In the same way, we warn them against various dangers that they cannot possibly understand. It is also true, as I think most observant parents know, that children are much more interested in the universe and the fundamental questions of existence than are adults.

So this is the moment at which we try to pass on to them our deepest beliefs, and the moment when they are most likely to receive them. As Philip Pullman has rightly said, " 'Once upon a time ...' is always a more effective instructor than 'Thou Shalt Not ...,' " so we do this most effectively with stories. But if we ourselves believe -- and are asked by our own children what we believe -- we will tell them, and they will instantly know if we mean it and also know how much it matters to us. They will learn from this that belief is a good thing. We will also try to find schools that will at the very least not undermine the morals and faith of the home. And for this, we are to be called abusers of children? This has the stench of totalitarian slander, paving the road to suppression and persecution.

By contrast, I say unequivocally that if a man wishes to bring his child up as an atheist, he should be absolutely free to do so. I am confident enough of the rightness of Christianity to believe that such a child may well learn later (though with more difficulty than he deserves) that he has been misled. But it is ridiculous to pretend that it is a neutral act to inform an infant that the heavens are empty, that the universe is founded on chaos rather than love, and that his grandparents, on dying, have ceased altogether to exist. I personally think it wrong to tell children such things, because I believe them to be false and wrong and roads to misery of various kinds. But in a free country, parents should be able to do so. In return, I ask for the same consideration for religious parents."