Pro-Family Atheist

Atheist Peter Wall is afraid that something like “Brave New World” is on the horizon.

“…I can…see the seeds of legal arguments that may give traction to the idea of removing reproduction from the hands of individuals…If both the mother and the father, both of whom are still required to contribute gametes for successful reproduction,…have no incentive or desire to take responsibility for the fruits of their reproduction, the argument only strengthens that this function be taken from them. It will get even stronger as the universal pre-school movement progresses and the two eventually meet up and create a continuous, state-mandated and state-controlled child-production facility. (I know that sounds crazy, but just keep watching. The historical trend has been going for over 150 years now; we’re closer to the end than the beginning.)”

I don’t know about you, but I’m not used to support for traditional families coming from atheists.

Comments 4

  1. John wrote:

    Firstly, I don’t really buy that argument. My sense is that parents fawn over their children far more than they have in the past. My parents were raised by their surroundign communities to a far greater degree than my friends and I were.

    Also, the factory reproducing would resolve the issue of faltering population in the industrialized words.

    Posted 24 Mar 2006 at 7:38 pm
  2. Peter wrote:

    Fawning over your child is not the same thing as abdicating the duty of raising your child and handing him or her over to the state at the age of five to be brainwashed. I know plenty of parents who fawn over their children obscenely, but clearly because they have given up the responsibility of actually raising their children, so showering them with affection is all they have left.

    Children are not human beings in our society. They are potential workers to the government, they are objects of pride and adoration to their parents, and they are infantilized by both; the government keeps them dull and docile with standardized, regulated “education” while parents keep them emotionally immature with all their fawning.

    But nowhere nowhere in the mainstream media, in cafe chatter, in the highways and byways of ordinary life do you see Americans suggesting that the problem with our educational system is that it exists at all, or that the reason why their children aren’t moving out until they’re 35 is because they’ve made them into emotional retards. Why not? Because Americans have bought — hook, line, and sinker — into the idea that state-funded, centralized, standardized education can only be good (science and technology; foreign competition; a hundred other vague factors, you know) and that there could never be anything wrong with fawning over your child.

    Yes, parents fawn over their children too much. And then when their little angel gets into trouble at school or with the law, they deny that it could have happened. How many times have I read the idiotic ranting of some deluded, fool mother declaring that her little angel could not possibly have knocked off that liquor store and shot that cop? (Or hit that other little boy, or talked back to that teacher, or forgotten to do his homework . . . )

    I, for one, am tired of schools blaming parents, parents blaming schools, and everybody blaming the government. There is only one problem in this country and it boils down to this:

    People no longer believe they should be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

    Posted 24 Mar 2006 at 8:31 pm
  3. Peter wrote:

    Also, now that I have a little more time to comment further, I would resist the unqualified appellation of “pro-family.” Where most people who take up that standard are unabashed, uncritical receivers of what they take to be a dying tradition, I see the family in its “traditional” mode to be plenty dysfunctional in its own right and am not willing simply to give it free reign as the solution to anyone’s problems.

    The idea of the sanctity of the family, especially as espoused (pun intended?) by many of the religious “pro-family” ranks, is just as dangerous as the idea of unmitigated individualism that always wins out over self-sacrifice to loved ones. The unbreakable shell of the family and parental authority have been invoked by many people, particularly religious ones, again and again to allow their use and abuse of children.

    Ultimately, I think my position is much better characterized by the last sentence of my previous comment than by the claim that I am somehow “pro-family.” People no longer believe they should be responsible for the consequences of their actions even when those consequences are positive responsibilities like loving and caring for other people, be they children or spouses.

    Posted 24 Mar 2006 at 9:22 pm
  4. Steve Nicoloso wrote:

    Peter, you usually make sense, but it is not terribly common that I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with you. But this:


    Children are not human beings in our society. They are potential workers to the government, they are objects of pride and adoration to their parents, and they are infantilized by both; the government keeps them dull and docile with standardized, regulated “education” while parents keep them emotionally immature with all their fawning.

    … is sheer poetry. I think Katrina, of recent memory, is another example demonstrating just how infantile and dependent folks in the Decadent West have become: the Federal Gov’t should have been there for us… and now we need the Federal Gov’t to investigate and figure out why the Federal Gov’t wasn’t there to help us. I cannot help but wonder (i’m no expert) whether there wasn’t an eerily similar moral and social “softening” among the Romans in their last days.

    Posted 27 Mar 2006 at 12:51 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *