Any guesses as to who said this?

You can’t even begin to understand biology, you can’t understand life, unless you understand what it’s all there for, how it arose…So I would teach [it] very early in childhood. I don’t think it’s all that difficult to do. It’s a very simple idea. One could do it with the aid of computer games and things like that.

I think it needs serious attention, that children should be taught where they come from, what life is all about, how it started, why it’s there, why there’s such diversity of it, why it looks designed. These are all things that can easily be explained to a pretty young child. I’d start at the age of about 7 or 8.

The reason atheism (more accurately, the “New Atheism,” or anti-theism) is starting to bump heads so much with religion is that it is beginning to frame itself as religion.

The quote above is from Richard Dawkins (video) on teaching evolution. One of the more respected atheist professors (within his community) admits one needs to understand “what [life] is all there for,” and asserts that the theory of evolution explains “what life is all about.” He likewise asserts a methodology — inculcating young children in one’s beliefs — he would no doubt vehemently oppose if it was a religious leader talking about creation, but as the quote shows, it could easily be one. (Dawkins has been characterized as calling teaching religious beliefs to children “child abuse.”)

Again, Dawkins represents a distinct movement and has addressed members of the US military as a leader of that movement. While he is often called an “atheist,” that is not necessarily academically correct or complete. It is one thing to lack a belief in God; it is quite another to assert that belief in God is dangerous and should be opposed (by the state, if necessary).

It is noteworthy, however, because Dawkins’ “movement” is a part of the American culture — which means it is also part of the US military culture. As this New Atheist subculture tries to be recognized within the military, it bears many of Dawkins’ hallmarks, not the least of which is the emulation of the religions it simultaneously opposes. But can these broadly categorized “atheists” be granted status as a religion under US government policies? Those questions have yet to be answered, but they will be — and have been — asked.