Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

So if the pedophile truly believes that it is all about love, it is
somehow ok? Is the abuse experienced by a girl whose friends are
threatened with hell fire, which is real if we are to believe the
woman's story, then is it ok that the parents truly believed that this
were the case? Where do we draw the line?

We are now entering a shady area of intent versus consequence. If
someone truly believes that he can fly and is about to step out of a
window, should we allow him to do so? If someone truly believes that
he can safely handle poisonous snakes because of a religious faith,
should we allow the person to do so? What if the person exposes his
children to such behavior? What about the person who truly believes
that his wife is his property? Or that his daughters need to be
circumcised?

I apologize for trying to help people understand Dawkins' position and
how it differs from the many strawmen I have seen about Dawkins on the
internet.

On 4/28/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pim,
>
> Despite the quote bomb of truly Janice proportions, you still haven't
> addressed my point. I'll put it succinctly.
>
> Is telling a child what you honestly believe to be the truth (that there is
> judgement and hell) abusive or is it not?
>
> The woman in the n_th quote you gave said that telling children about hell
> is an abuse of trust. Not so, IMO. It can only be an abuse of trust if you
> deliberately lie to the child. (Like telling him that oral sex is a form of
> holy communion).
>
> Please respond to the point.
>
> Iain
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 28 17:38:23 2007