Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

As you can see, I already realised that and apologised (perhaps you did not
receive my post of about 20 minutes ago).

My point remains the same, however. In the context, I still think that
Dawkins's argument is absolutely sick and it is beyond me why you continue
to defend him.

You are still conveniently ignoring my continuing point about the damage
done by sexual abuse - whether gentle or violent, I've witnessed personally
the subsequent suffering of people who are the victims of this and am
outraged that Dawkins should trivialise this to make his points against
religion. Are you going to continue to ignore this?

Answer this:

To perform sexual acts on children, whether gentle or violent is clearly a
selfish and perverted form of self-gratification and is rightly called
"abuse". Agreed?

But to warn someone of a destruction that you GENUINELY and HONESTLY believe
will befall them is NOT abuse - it's doing what you believe is your duty.
It may be misguided, sure, I would have no problem if Dawkins said it was
misguided. But do you not think it's sick to compare this with genuine,
selfish abuse? They are just not the same thing.

If you won't answer that point then I give up in despair.

Iain

On 4/28/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Seems that we have to be careful reading that to which we respond. I
> posted the actual article, not an article which quoted from it, to
> allow people to see Dawkins' argument in context.
>
>
> 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
> >
>

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