Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

From one of Ted's links, Dawkins is quoted:

In a recent editorial for the secular humanist magazine *Free Inquiry*,
entitled 'Religion's Real Child Abuse', Richard Dawkins opined that: 'Odious
as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that
it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of having been
brought up Catholic in the first place.' [1]
<http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_atheismandchildabuse.htm#_edn1>
Dawkins was himself the victim of a Latin master who 'fondled' him in the
squash court: 'a disagreeable sensation for a nineteen-year-old, a mixture
of embarrassment and skin-crawling revulsion. . .' [2]
<http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_atheismandchildabuse.htm#_edn2>However,
says Dawkins, this 'was certainly not in the same league as being
led to believe that I, or someone I knew, might go to everlasting fire.' [3]
<http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_atheismandchildabuse.htm#_edn3>

Dawkins has in his sights the fact that the Catholic Church has
traditionally taught children that unbelievers (even, in some cases,
Protestant Christians) will spend eternity in a fiery Hell:

the *mental* abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated *threat* of violence
and terrible pain, if sincerely *believed* by the child, could easily be
more damaging than the physical actuality of sexual abuse. An extreme
threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is. [4]
<http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_atheismandchildabuse.htm#_edn4>

For Dawkins, 'The threat of eternal hell is an extreme example of mental
abuse, just as violent sodomy is an extreme example of physical abuse.' [5]
<http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_atheismandchildabuse.htm#_edn5>

As someone who been a volunteer with the Samaritans (a phone line for the
suicidal) for ten years, I can confidently say that Dawkins really doesn't
know what he is talking about, and that this statement is extremely
offensive - not to religious people, but to all people who have REALLY been
subjected to sexual abuse. Not the minor incident Dawkins relates about
being fondled by a Latin master at age 19, the reality is that it's FAR
WORSE than that, and often starts as young as age 3. I have spoken to many
severely depressed and suicidal people who have been subjected things like
being forced to have oral sex or buggery at age less than 6. It comes up
again and again and again. But I don't recall ever speaking to a caller who
was depressed and suicidal because they were brought up a Catholic. Dawkins
belittles the suffering of people who are subjected to the "physical
actuality of sexual abuse" by what he says here and it's a disgrace.
Dawkins got over the "skin crawling revulsion" of being fondled by a Latin
teacher at 19 - but the sort of abuse I'm talking about is something many
people never get over.

I hope people aren't too offended by some of the explicitly direct words in
the above. I am truly outraged by this. I can't understand why anyone
would want to defend him. Perhaps Dawkins should spend some time as a
Samaritan volunteer (it's a secular organisation) and then he'd get a better
idea of the terrible damage caused by sexual abuse.

Iain

On 4/28/07, Ted Davis <tdavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
>
> Pim,
>
> I've gone hunting at sites both left and right, in terms of the "culture
> wars," and here are those which seem most germane to the "child abuse"
> thing. IMO, the "virus" thing needs no further documentation–he says this
> in one of his books, as I indicated earlier. IMO, there's enough smoke here
> to say there's a fire underneath it. The petition seems pretty damning to
> me. Yes, he tried some damage control and apologized, but I think one could
> very reasonably interpret this as backtracking after criticism from fellow
> atheists. Even the part he still defends is more than enough to justify
> putting Dawkins in the extremist category when it comes to religion. He
> obviously just flat hates it, and wants in all possible ways to get rid of
> it, and to restrict the rights of religious parents. A lot of left-leaning
> sources agree with this. I'm not making it up, or giving too much credence
> to the other side. Why do you keep trying to defend him?
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48252
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6210151
> Here's the NPR interview, with comments on "child abuse" that are milder
> than those below
>
> http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/print.html
> (he tries to qualify his comments about "child abuse", and confirms the
> "virus" part.
>
> http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_atheismandchildabuse.htm
> (The op-ed piece that is quoted here, from "Free Inquiry," is apparently
> not available online)
>
> http://telicthoughts.com/richard-dawkins-and-child-abuse/
> and
> http://telicthoughts.com/uk-petition-against-religious-upbringing/
>
> The apparently definitive one:
> http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/search/label/Richard%20Dawkins
> Note, however, that Dawkins still agrees, apparently, with this part:
> I signed it having read only the main petition: "We the undersigned
> petition the Prime Minister to make it illegal to indoctrinate or define
> children by religion before the age of 16."
> That's less explicit than the rest of the petition, but I can imagine what
> Dawkins might include under the verb, "indoctrinate." Don't you think, Pim,
> that it would in his view constitute "indoctrination" for me to tell my
> daughter that God will judge her for her sins? I must admit, I agree with
> those commentators who see this as "Orwellian." Don't you, Pim? Something
> tells me that he would not limit this to telling children that they ought to
> strap explosives onto their backs and blow themselves up for Allah.
>
> http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/search/label/Richard%20Dawkins
>
> The DNA of Religious Faith
> By DAVID P. BARASH
> From "The Chronicle of Higher Education," April 20, 2007
> <Big Snip>
> For Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) as well as Daniel C. Dennett
> (Breaking the Spell), religion is primarily the misbegotten offspring of
> memes that promote themselves in human minds: essentially, religion as
> mental virus, thus something adaptive for "itself" and not for its
> "victims." Or it could be a nonadaptive byproduct of something adaptive in
> its own right. For example, children seem hard-wired to accept parental
> teaching, since such advice is likely to be fitness-enhancing ("This is good
> to eat," "Don't pet the saber-tooth"). In turn, this makes children
> vulnerable to whatever else they are taught ("Respect the Sabbath," "Cover
> your hair") as well as downright needy when it comes to parentlike beings,
> leading especially to the patriarchal sky god of the Abrahamic faiths.
> For Dawkins in particular, not only is religious belief maladaptive — and
> unjustified — but, given the susceptibility of young children to adult
> indoctrination, the very teaching of religion to defenseless children is a
> form of child abuse.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.