Denialism

Kids’ Book: Religion is Evilism

—

by

Chris
in

Check it out–for a mere 12 Euro, you can buy, Wo bitte geht’s zu Gott?, fragte das kleine Ferkel, a book that is reportedly causing a stir for its depiction of the world’s major religions. This children’s book is pitched to atheists who wish to indoctrinate/inoculate their children against religion:

The book tells the story of a piglet and a hedgehog, who discover a poster attached to their house that says: “If you do not know God, you are missing something!”

This frightens them because they had never suspected at all that anything was missing in their lives. Thus they set out to look for “God.” Along the way they encounter a rabbi, a bishop and a mufti who are portrayed as insane, violent and continually at each other’s throats.

The rabbi is drawn in the same way as the caricatures from the propaganda of 1930’s Germany; corkscrew curls, fanatical lights in his eyes, a set of predator’s flashing teeth and hands like claws. He reacts to the animals by flying into a rage, yelling at them that God had set out to destroy all life on Earth at the time of Noah and chases them away.

The mufti fares little better. While he greets both animals at first as a quiet man and invites them into his mosque, he soon changes into a ranting fanatic. He assembles a baying Islamic mob and holds the animals up in a clenched fist while condemning them to everlasting damnation through bared teeth and an unruly-looking beard.

The insinuation here is that all visitors to mosques are extremists and every imam who appears reasonable is, in truth, nevertheless, a preacher of hate.

One of the authors says he’s merely providing some alternative to the many religious books available for children:

“Children also have a right to enlightenment,” he wrote on a Web site set up dedicated to the book. “They should not be left defenseless to the scientifically untenable and ethically problematic stories of religion.”

Tip: Thank you, Fark!

Comments

  1. Patrick Pricken

    Here’s a comparison of the images in the book and nazi drawings:

    I hope html is allowed

    Reply
  2. Patrick Pricken

    Oh, and since it’s not obvious from the text above, the German ministry of families has gone to court against the book and tries to put it on the index of texts endangering youths (“Jugendgefährdende Schriften”), which would mean the book could only be sold to adults and could not be advertised or promoted (afaik).

    Reply
  3. Aaron

    A “mere” 12€?! Isn’t that something like $75 these days?!

    Reply
  4. Joshua

    I guess the thinking goes that since the religious are going to accuse atheists of being hateful bigots no matter what, we may as well play along?

    Reply
  5. Dale Husband

    Just the facts, please! Using charactures of religious figures is a classic expression of bigotry.

    Reply
  6. Kagehi

    Interesting premise. I kind of like the *idea*, but, frankly, this guys execution is likely to get someone executed in a lot of places… And I am not sure I blame the people handing out the bullets to the firing squad. This sort of over the top stuff is just stupid. Mind you, to do it right you would need something like a TV mini series, where each place they go they are treated well, only to realize a little bit at a time that the people around them are gullible fools, and the people running each of the circuses they go looking for God in are totally nuts. It wouldn’t be any more *nice* about it than this guys book, but it wouldn’t read like a fracking WWII German propaganda poster either, which given how often they confuse Hitler and atheism/evolution, never mind that he wasn’t the former and hated the later for not being Lemarkian enough (I.e. it suggested that there wasn’t such a thing as a “master race”).

    Reply
  7. Roy Harrold

    Look what I found:

    “‘Academic bullying’ has been defined as: ‘asserting a position of intellectual superiority in an aggressive, abusive or offensive manner, persistently criticise and condemn, openly humiliate and engage in public sarcasm”

    I think that describes the two of you and your denialism campaign to a tee! (Sorry, I meant TO A TEE!!!!!)

    Here’s a BBC news article about academic bullying:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6634725.stm

    and a blog by victims:
    http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2008/01/thirty-academic-mobbing-cases-since.html

    In my opinion, you two are a pair of witch-hunters, but I’ll settle for bullies if that’s the current lingo for what you do.

    Did you gang up on “the stupid kids” when you were in elementary and high-school too?

    I’m working on a “Technocratcensor’s Deck of Cards”. My turn to make up words and self-serving definitions. Of course, I won’t actually use mine to encourage disparagement and bullying – it will be just to mock the two of you.

    Reply
  8. Roy Harrold

    I look at your bios and I think – these are impressive accomplishments – and I congratulate you for them. It is also obvious that, at some level, you must genuinely care about the wellbeing of others. Neither of you would be doing what you are doing – professionally – if that wasn’t the case. That just makes the denialist campaign all the more disappointing to me.

    Why would you be putting so much energy into encouraging an atmosphere of acrimony and reflexive disparagement? Can’t you see that your example provides rationalizations in the minds of others, to declare someone a “crank” in their own mind and then set out to destroy that person whether they actually deserve it or not?

    There’s a bitter irony in what happened to Mark on that New York Times blog. Hundreds of disparaging comments directed at Mark there, and most of them undeserved because the Times blogger made stupid mistakes that misrepresented what you’d really said. Was that a wake-up call for you, to experience all of that undeserved condemnation? It should have been , because you yourselves are contributing to a social atmosphere wherein people don’t think twice about dumping on someone perceived to be “fair game”.

    Reply
  9. Suricou Raven

    I suspect this book is an attempt to sell to the atheist-parent market without really knowing how to go about doing so.

    Atheists do have an issue with religious education – lacking any religious teaching, their children are likely to believe the first religion they hear of from friends, teachers or media. The parent then has the difficult task of explaining that, no matter how many people claim a fact to be true, this does not make it so. That claims should not be accepted unquestioningly, even if they come from someone in a position of authority and respect like a teacher.

    But a straw-man book with historically suggestive illustrations is not the way to do it.

    Reply
  10. Bronze Dog

    Look what I found:

    “‘Academic bullying’ has been defined as: ‘asserting a position of intellectual superiority in an aggressive, abusive or offensive manner, persistently criticise and condemn, openly humiliate and engage in public sarcasm”

    I think that describes the two of you and your denialism campaign to a tee! (Sorry, I meant TO A TEE!!!!!)

    I fail to see a whole lot wrong with that. If you’re right, you’re right. If your logic is sound, your logic is sound. If your logic is sound, there’s nothing wrong with being assertive about expressing it.

    If they can’t take logic, offense is what they take.

    I’m working on a “Technocratcensor’s Deck of Cards”. My turn to make up words and self-serving definitions. Of course, I won’t actually use mine to encourage disparagement and bullying – it will be just to mock the two of you.

    How exactly is criticism censorship? Are all forms of free expression censorship, now?

    It is also obvious that, at some level, you must genuinely care about the wellbeing of others. Neither of you would be doing what you are doing – professionally – if that wasn’t the case. That just makes the denialist campaign all the more disappointing to me.

    What would you suggest we do in the face of harmful pseudoscience? I have a feeling you’re the most militant apathist I’ve ever encountered.

    Why would you be putting so much energy into encouraging an atmosphere of acrimony and reflexive disparagement? Can’t you see that your example provides rationalizations in the minds of others, to declare someone a “crank” in their own mind and then set out to destroy that person whether they actually deserve it or not?

    What?! Attacking people using unsound logic by pointing out that unsound logic is bad? Besides, if a person uses propaganda tactics and logical fallacies deliberately, they deserve to have their reputation destroyed. Is it wrong to fight evil by exposing it?

    There’s a bitter irony in what happened to Mark on that New York Times blog. Hundreds of disparaging comments directed at Mark there, and most of them undeserved because the Times blogger made stupid mistakes that misrepresented what you’d really said. Was that a wake-up call for you, to experience all of that undeserved condemnation?

    If his views were misrepresented, it IS undeserved. Mark and the rest of us skeptics aren’t, however, in the habit of misrepresenting people’s views: Denialist woos are deserving of condemnation, just like lies and mistakes are deserving of condemnation.

    Of course, Roy, it’s hard to know we’re representing you correctly, since your performance at Orac’s hasn’t been very enlightening. I haven’t seen you propose an alternative course of action we should take.

    It should have been , because you yourselves are contributing to a social atmosphere wherein people don’t think twice about dumping on someone perceived to be “fair game”.

    Oh noes! We’re encouraging an environment of free expression! We’re exercising our right to openly discuss anything without censorship of views considered rude!

    Cry me a river, Roy.

    Reply
  11. kamenin

    Please, get some perspective. It’s just a cartoon rabbi. It’s not historically suggestive or taken out of a WW2 propaganda poster: none of the racial attributes or antisemitic insinuations of Nazi propagande are there. Does it mean you can’t draw a cartoon critical of Jewish (along with Christian and Muslim) religion because you can’t do an caricature of an orthodox rabbi?

    Nazi propaganda used pictures of orthodox Jews, then added the racial marks and antisemitism to it. This book takes a cartoon of a Jewish rabbi, then adds its message that religions implant fear into children to make them believers – you may buy into that view or you don’t, but if it’s antisemitism or not is a totally different question.

    Reply
  12. Mr Eis

    About time. Let’s hope it sells well, then we might get a sequel with strange doctors that try to sell you water and magic charms perhaps.

    Reply
  13. Oldfart

    Reminds me of the two “rabbis” in the “Wizards” full-length cartoon movie. Actually, I think “Wizards” portrayed the two rabbis more gently but pointed out both the hypocrisy and the uselessness of the praying……………a much better approach I think.

    Reply
  14. Patrick Pricken

    Thanks to the hubbub about this book, I’ve ordered it. If you’re interested, I could “review” the book in these comments afterwards to see whether it really is a hateful diatribe or not.

    Reply
  15. Chris H.

    FWIW, I think this book is a bad idea, and that’s why I used the word “indoctrinate” to describe the type of parent who would use such a book with their child. It’s just as bad as the tactics that the other side uses (i.e., you can’t be moral unless you believe in my god…). C

    Reply
  16. Bronze Dog

    I agree, especially if the caricatures are drawing on some of the really nasty propaganda of the past.

    If I were to do something vaguely similar, I’d draw them realistically: They’re normal people. I’d probably avoid having them physically fight, and instead focus on the “he said, she said” nature of the empty field of theology.

    But I’d have to think it out for quite a while before a final draft.

    Reply
  17. Brian X

    I don’t think there’s any question that Germany’s speech codes, however understandably, are a complete train wreck. (Hell, they’re probably doing a wonderful job of keeping Neo-Naziism alive in a country that has spent over six decades trying to put it behind them.) But that doesn’t excuse this — the mainstream of atheism has tended to be harsh, but not intentionally offensive (except perhaps in the case of Christopher Hitchens). I’m all for children’s books promoting atheism, but not if they have to rely on hateful stereotypes to get the message across.

    I hope German atheists have the decency not to buy this filth. By all means, don’t ban it. But no store is under any obligation to carry it, and no one should buy it.

    Reply
  18. Lance

    After viewing the drawings of the Rabbi at the link provided by Patrick Pricken I find the comparisons to “caricatures from the propaganda of 1930’s Germany” a bit histrionic.

    References to “fanatical lights in his eyes, a set of predator’s flashing teeth and hands like claws” seem to be hugely exaggerated. The good Rabbi certainly looks agitated and his eyes reflect that, but I’m not sure I see any “fanatical lights”. His Teeth seem to be normal human teeth to me, straight and white as well. The biggest exaggeration is the “claw like hands” remark. His hands, while cartoonish (it IS a cartoon after all) seem normal as well.

    Reply
  19. sehwolf

    Ofiicial Statement of Stephan Kramer, General Secretary of the “Central Council of Jews in Germany”

    Sometimes I regret that freedom of speech knows almost no bounds. The opinion, the book was anti-Semitic, can’t be folleowd, because all three major monotheistic religions are equally slandered. The book is simply anti-religious, anti-God-Faith and against everything resulting. I would classify it as militant atheistic, and the distorted image of religions, is drawn in purpose to detain Children from faith in any God. The perfidious and dangerous thing is that the very attractive graphical presentation is aimed at young children, which are defenceless against such anti-religious agitation. In any case, the book is dangerous and is therefore to be indicated. And in the end, especially on the last page absolutely tasteless. The image of naked people might fear growing children.
    The freedom expression oft and art is important but should not be abused. This is a clear abuse and I can only hope that all monotheistic religion agree here, to defend themselves.

    I think this statement leaves no doubt what this attempt to indicate this book is really about:
    This Book isn’t antisemitic but has to indicated because of its criticism on religion.

    Reply
  20. DuWayne

    Chris H –

    Personally, I think a far more valuable children’s book would be a kids version of your denialist deck of cards. A sort of propaganda primer, if you will. Why stop at inoculating kids from religion? Help prepare them to deal with irrationality of all stripes.

    Reply
  21. Sophie Hirschfeld

    Without actually reading the book (well, and being able to reasonably translate it), I don’t think I can really give an objective opinion as to the extent of its evilness. (I hope the person who said they are buying it does eventually fill people in on what they found). However, if it is as the person in the article describes, then I can understand why it is presented that way. I think in most movements there are the activists that take extreme stances and/or use exaggeration in order to make their cases and there are those that try to be rational and take more practical and more careful approaches. Unfortunately, people notice the extreme reactions more oftentimes. I’m guessing that there are probably books for kids that are not so averse. Then again, how do you explain to a child in an atheist (or non-religious) family why there are religiously geared things that happen in the world or that they face? I’m not advocating the book, of course, but I guess I’m saying that I can understand some of the motivations behind this person publishing this book.

    from Joshua: “I guess the thinking goes that since the religious are going to accuse atheists of being hateful bigots no matter what, we may as well play along?”

    Some atheists are hateful bigots; so are some religious people. Being atheist doesn’t stop ingroup/outgroup thinking. I do agree that there is a stereotype that we would do well to extinguish, but I think we should also perhaps focus on trying to help those who are bigots from any background to learn to be less bigotted. No single group that I know of is free of bigotry.

    Reply
  22. Skemono

    Some atheists are hateful bigots

    Useful example!

    Reply
  23. Patrick Pricken

    I got the book yesterday and read it. So… is it evil atheistic garbage? I don’t think so. As a matter of fact, I was positively surprised at the content. There is snark about religion, but it’s not a lot of it. My favorite part is the last page where about a dozen people of all sizes, shapes and ethnicities are drawn naked, with only the Christian bishop, the rabbi and the mufti being ashamed of their nudity.

    As to the rest of the book, here’s a rundown of the criticism: The piglet is astonished that it’s mother should have been Jewish for it to be Jewish, as well. It’s sad about God killing all the people and animals in the Great Flood, and it asks the rabbi how, if humans can invent gods (as he claims), he knows that the God he prays to is not an invention.

    With the Christian priest, the piglet is turned off by the idea of God sending his own son to be crucified in order to wash our sins away with blood (“icky blood”), as well as the Catholic idea of eating a part of Jesus’s body during mass (it calls the Catholics »cannibals« then, leading to the authors being sued by a Catholic ministry).

    Finally the piglet and its friend get to the mosque, where they’re surprised by the idea of praying five times a day and having to wash beforehand every time. They inquire how the people know that Mohammed didn’t make those rules up and are being chased out of the mosque for it.

    Outside, on the temple hill (where all three “temples” stand), the three priests meet, try to catch the piglet and its friend, but get into a physical argument about which faith sports the worst kind of hell. In the meantime, the piglet goes home and enjoys life again, all the while having a laugh about those funny humans: »If there is a God, he’s surely not living in those haunted castles«.

    All in all, the book is open about criticism of the biblical faiths, but I wouldn’t say it’s overly dismissive, offensive or even hateful. It *is* literature designed to get children off their faith, or better even, literature designed for humanists, atheists or whatever to give to their kids. And in that, it’s not only a book about the value of free minds, critical thinking or the like, but a book about strange or silly ideas in faith (with the above-mentioned examples).

    You would have to decide for yourself whether to give such a book to your child. I don’t think the attempt at putting it on the index is warranted, however.

    (my German review of the situation can be found here)

    Reply
  24. Sophie Hirschfeld

    Thanks for returning and giving a run-down of the book, Patrick! I’ve been watching and waiting for one. 🙂

    Now I kinda wish I had a copy in English for my niece.

    Reply
  25. Patrick Pricken

    I don’t know if anyone still reads this, but the German publisher has put a download to the english version of the book on his website, so you may now judge for yourself…

    http://www.ferkelbuch.de/buchdownload.html

    You can get the text and the illustrations.

    Reply
  26. gfors

    clearly the authors don’t watch ‘Shalom in the Home’…point being, many persons of the various cloths are respectable, admirable people. On first blush this book seems to just fight ignorance with disrespect.

    If i believed in overpopulating the earth, I would invest in kids books about the universe, geology and evolution and let the religious absurdities become self evident.

    Reply
  27. Gauldar

    I think the problem with going about it this way, you’ll still have teen’s venting their pre-adolescent anger going against the views of their parents.

    eg.

    Angry Teen: I hate you! I’m going to join a major religion and you can’t stop me!

    Reply
  28. Christiaan

    Is this book available in English? I’ve been toying with the idea of writing such books myself for my nieces and nephews, because they’re so few and far between.

    Reply
  29. Christiaan

    I just emailed one of the authors and he said they’re looking for an English publisher.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *