This piece by Richard Dawkins appeared in the online Time Magazine ten days ago, and I think it’s a great sign that a mainline media venue, one not known for criticizing religion, publishes something so “strident.”

The essay, appearing in the “Religion” section, is called “Dawkins: Don’t force your religious opinions on your children.” If you’ve read Richard’s other pieces, or just The God Delusion, you’ll know of his view that forcing religion down the throats of children constitutes child abuse. In general I agree, although the word “abuse” might be misleading, since not all such brainwashing produces serious harm. But all such brainwashing certainly weakens the organs of reason. On this ground he objects to using terms like “Muslim child” or “Jewish child,” for children are forced to bear those labels and didn’t chose their beliefs.

Just a quote or two for the uninitiated:

Would you ever speak of a four-year-old’s political beliefs? Hannah is a socialist four-year-old, Mark a conservative. Who would ever dream of saying such a thing? What would you say if you read a demographic article which said something like this: “One in every three children born today is a Kantian Neo-platonist child. If the birth rate trends continue, Existentialist Positivists will be outnumbered by 2030.” Never mind the nonsensical names of philosophical schools of thought I just invented. I deliberately chose surreal names so as not to distract from the real point. Religion is the one exception we all make to the rule: don’t label children with the opinions of their parents. And if you want to make an exception for the opinions we call religious, and claim that it is any less preposterous to speak of “Christian children” or “Muslim children”, you’d better have a good argument up your sleeve.

After raising this rhetorical—and deeply meaningful—question, Dawkins bats away several potential objections, including these: “But we label children by their nationality, don’t we?” And “Religious labeling children is good because it helps us identify their culture.” I’ll let you read Dawkins’s answers for yourself.

At the end, he analogizes recognizing the invidious nature of religious labels with feminists’ recognition and identification of demeaning sexist labels:

Feminists have successfully raised our consciousness about sex-biased language. Nobody nowadays talks about “one man one vote,” or “the rights of man.” The use of “man” in such a context raises immediate hackles. Even those who use sexist language know they are doing it, may even do it deliberately to annoy. The point is that our consciousness has been raised. Our language has changed because we have become aware of hidden assumptions that we previously overlooked. Let us all raise our consciousness, and the consciousness of society, about the religious labeling of children. Let’s all mind our religious language just as we have learned to over sexist language. “Catholic child,” “Muslim child,” “Hindu child,” “Mormon child” — all such phrases should make us cringe. Whenever you hear somebody speak of a “Catholic child,” stop them in their tracks: There’s no such thing as a Catholic child. Would you speak of a “Postmodernist child” or a “States Rights child”? What you meant to say was “child of Catholic parents.” And the same for “Muslim” child etc.