|
Post by ignorantianescia on Aug 15, 2011 18:02:31 GMT
Andrew Brown had this dreadful news posted on his blog."(...)
Tajikistan is the smallest, poorest country in central Asia. When the Soviet Union broke up it was engulfed in a vicious civil war for years; the economy now depends on a mixture of remittances and aluminium mining. But it is a world leader when it comes to ensuring that religion remains a purely private matter. The news service Forum 18 reports that the Tajik government has banned religion for children.
The simple grandeur of last year's draft bill has been watered down: the version presented to parliament then would have banned all children from attending any religious worship at all. But the present law says only that "parents are obliged … not to let children [or] teenagers participate in the activity of religious organisations, with the exception of those officially enrolled in religious education (excluding funerals and mourning events)". So Tajik children may now legally attend granny's funeral, despite the danger of catching religion there."If you want to know more about the political system of Tajikistan, read this.
|
|
|
Post by turoldus on Aug 16, 2011 9:21:56 GMT
Wonder what the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Toynbee or Sanderson think of it. They should applaud to this, but something tells me they won't - openly at least.
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Aug 17, 2011 12:19:30 GMT
Wonder what the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Toynbee or Sanderson think of it. They should applaud to this, but something tells me they won't - openly at least. [/ quote] Well I don't applaud this for a second,and I suspect none of the above do either,but why do you think they should?
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Aug 17, 2011 13:13:00 GMT
I agree with elephantchang to some extent, I expect that Richard Dawkins would be very critical of this law. Arguing that some beliefs might be classed as child abuse is a long shot from supporting a ban on participating in most religious activities for minors. There is a discussion about it on RD.net where it proved to be divisive. Prof. Dawkins hasn't responded on the topic, so we don't know his views on it for now. I'm not so sure that Harris' take is going to be critical, though.
|
|