Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

I am defending him against claims that were made by Ted and Moorad
about Dawkins. My goal is accuracy before rhetoric since a lack of
accurate understanding of the arguments involved will allow Dawkins
and his followers to quickly point out the errors.

I am not conveniently ignoring anything, I am merely correcting
people's arguments or asking them to support it. Let's for the moment
agree for the purpose of the discussion that Dawkins' statements are
'sick'. Does this mean that other statements about Dawkins are somehow
protected against scrutiny?

While my position on what constitutes child abuse is irrelevant, I
take notice of the woman who wrote Dawkins about physical and
emotional abuse she endured while she was a catholic, claiming that
the latter was far more permanent and lasting than the former. In
other words, abuse and how people deal with abuse comes in all shapes
and forms.

<quote>"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>

While we may be far more reluctant to object to mental abuse than to
physical abuse, I believe that both can be quite disastrous. And that
is what I read in Dawkins' arguments.

I suggest you read

<quote>'What shall we tell the children?' is a superb polemic on how
religions abuse the minds of children, by the distinguished
psychologist Nicholas Humphrey. It was originally delivered as a
lecture in aid of Amnesty International, and has now been reissued as
a chapter of his book, The Mind Made Flesh, just published by Oxford
University Press.</quote>

Full text found at source: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html

to get an appreciation of where Dawkins comes from.

While I certainly do not want to trivialize the effect of sexual abuse
on children, I also realize that the effects vary largely amongst
victims based on both the extent of their exposure, the relationship
of the abuser to the child and many other factors. But similarly we
see how children who are exposed to mental cruelty or physical abuse
often suffer similar consequences at a later age.
But this digresses from the issue I originally raised. Even when it
comes to Dawkins view of mental and sexual abuse, the actual article
shows a far more moderate picture than portrayed by those commenting
on it.

From Dawkins' book I quote

<quote>'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never
hurt me.' The adage is true as long as you don't really believe the
words. But if your whole upbringing, and everything you have ever been
told by parents, teachers and priests, has led you to believe, really
believe, utterly and completely, that sinners burn in hell (or some
other obnoxious article of doctrine such as that a woman is the
property of her husband), it is entirely plausible that words could
have a more long-lasting and damaging effect than deeds. I am
persuaded that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used
to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they
encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven
mortal sins in an eternal hell.
</quote>

and

<quote>After watching a rehearsal, in which the devil was suitably
diabolical in the hammed-up style of a villain of Victorian
melodrama, I interviewed Pastor Roberts in the presence of his cast.
He told me that the optimum age for a child to visit a Hell House
is twelve. This shocked me somewhat, and I asked him whether it
would worry him if a twelve-year-old child had nightmares after
one of his performances. He replied, presumably honestly:

I would rather for them to understand that Hell is a place
that they absolutely do not want to go. I would rather
reach them with that message at twelve than to not reach
them with that message and have them live a life of sin
and to never find the Lord Jesus Christ. And if they end
up having nightmares, as a result of experiencing this, I
think there's a higher good that would ultimately be
achieved and accomplished in their life than simply having
nightmares
.
I suppose that, if you really and truly believed what Pastor
Roberts says he believes, you would feel it right to intimidate
children too.
</quote>

As to how to raise one child

<quote>I thank my own parents for taking the view that children should
 be taught not so much what to think as how to think. If, having been
fairly and properly exposed to all the scientific evidence, they grow
up and decide that the Bible is literally true or that the movements
of the planets rule their lives, that is their privilege. The
important point is that it is their privilege to decide what they
shall think, and not their parents' privilege to impose it by force
majeure.
And this, of course, is especially important when we reflect that
children become the parents of the next generation, in a position to
pass on whatever indoctrination may have moulded them.
</quote>

And yet we see accusations that Dawkins somehow wants to take away
children from parents raising them in a religious setting.

Dawkins provides an insightful example of an Inca girl who may very
well have believed that her sacrifice to the Gods was a good thing.
Examples of all extremes can be provided to show that there is a
sliding scale. What about female circumcision? child abuse or
religious practice?

And then finally

<quote>Earlier in our televised conversation, Jill had described this
kind of religious upbringing as a form of mental abuse, and I
returned to the point, as follows: 'You use the words religious
abuse. If you were to compare the abuse of bringing up a child really
to believe in hell . . . how do you think that would compare in trauma
terms with sexual abuse?' She replied: 'That's a very difficult
question . . . I think there are a lot of similarities actually,
because it is about abuse of trust; it is about denying the child the
right to feel free and open and able to relate to the world in the
normal way . . . it's a form of denigration; it's a form of denial of
the true self in both cases.'
</quote>

On 4/28/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Received on Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:11:37 -0700