Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

Further to the below, I now realise that Pim was quoting from the same
article as I was, so I apologise for the allegations I made.

Nonetheless I still think Dawkins's points are extremely sick. Also he
seems to make some kind of distinction between a gentle paedophile and a
violent one. It is my experience that people who have been abused by
"gentle" paedophiles can end up being just as damaged as those who have
suffered at the hands of a violent one. This is because a child is too
young and innocent to know that the act being engaged in (which the child
might enjoy if it is done gently), is profoundly wrong. When they do
eventually find out that what they went along with in all innocence was
perverted and wrong, then they end up feeling dirty and to blame for what
happened. This inevitably leads to depression, suicidal thoughts,
self-loathing, and the feeling that they are the ones to blame.

I think Dawkins is also unnecessarily emphasising sexual abuse by priests.
Priests, lay people, atheists etc all can be sexual abusers.

Furthermore, his entire point about whether its abusive to warn children
about hell depends on the assumption that hell doesn't exist. If you happen
to believe hell exists, then you're not being abusive in warning your child
against it - you're just doing your honest best. Dawkins is perfectly
entitled to say that they are wrong to believe in Hell, but not to accuse
them of abuse. But no-one, no-one who abuses children is being honest in
any way. For example Dawkins tells of a priest forcing a 14 year old boy to
give him oral sex as a way to receive communion. Plainly that's perverted
and dishonest, nothing whatever to do with the Roman Catholic faith, and
something to be rightly angry about.

Iain

On 4/28/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Pim:
>
> Do you make a regular habit of conviently ignoring uncomfortable facts
> that are pointed out to you? I made an actual quote from Dawkins from an
> article
>
> <http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_atheismandchildabuse.htm#_ednref1>Richard Dawkins, 'Religion's Real Child Abuse',
> *Free Inquiry*, Fall 2002, Vol. 22, No. 4., p. 9.
>
> where he... that is said Richard Dawkins said:
>
> 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>
>
> You've chosen to completely ignore this, and the rest of my posting and
> substituted a different article. Is this an honest way to argue?? Please
> address the article I quoted and respond to the rest of what I said.
>
> Sexual abuse of children leaves far more than a "yuchy" feeling -
> evidently you've never spoken to someone when they are in the middle of a
> "flashback" during which they vividly re-experience all the nausea and pain
> of having had oral sex or buggery forced upon them. If you had experienced
> having to talk to someone while in the middle of such a desperate panic
> attack, and you realised that the actions of the perpetrator had reduced the
> person to this state, and also to a state of utter helplesness and
> self-loathing, the you would perhaps agree that it is outrageous that
> Dawkins should use the topic of sexual abuse of children to make a cheap
> point against religion. But of course, Dawkins doesn't seem capable of
> wrong in your eyes. Well I think he's acting in incredibly poor taste and
> making light of the results of sexual abuse by saying it's just a "yuchy"
> feeling. I am shaking with anger as I write this so I'll sign off.
>
> Iain
>
> On 4/28/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/28/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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.'
> >
> > What Dawkins said
> >
> > <quote>
> > In the wake of the current scandal over child abuse by priests , I
> > have had a letter from an American woman in her mid forties who was
> > brought up Roman Catholic. She has two strong recollections from when
> > she was seven. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his
> > car. And around the same time a little schoolfriend of hers, who had
> > tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my
> > correspondent was led to believe by the then official doctrine of her
> > church. Her view now is that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic
> > child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by
> > far the worst. She writes:
> >
> > "Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind
> > of a 7 year old) as 'yuchy' while the memory of my friend going to
> > hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of
> > the priest ? but I spent many a night being terrified that the people
> > I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares."
> > </quote>
> > Read the rest at
> >
> > http://richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
>
> - Italian Proverb
> -----------
>

-- 
-----------
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.