Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

And he goes on to state that parents have the right to do this.

On 4/28/07, philtill@aol.com <philtill@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Dawkins says this on his website:
>
> "Humphrey argues that, in the same way as Amnesty works tirelessly to free
> political prisoners the world over, we should work to free the children of
> the world from the religions which, with parental approval, damage minds too
> young to understand what is happening to them. He is right..."
> Now you might reply that he is only talking about **certain** teachings
> that Christians might give their children. He is not interested in
> interfering with any other Christian teachings, only the ones that might
> cause a child anguish. But that would not be true. Here is what he wrote
> in a published article:
>
> "Which brings me to my point about mental child abuse....Religion is the one
> field in our culture about which it is absolutely accepted, without question
> — without even noticing how bizarre it is — that parents have a total and
> absolute say in what their children are going to be, how their children are
> going to be raised, what opinions their children are going to have about the
> cosmos, about life, about existence. Do you see what I mean about mental
> child abuse?"
>
> Quoted from "Is Science a Religion?" The Humanist 57 (1) (January/February
> 1997).
>
> In this article, within the ellipsis of my quotation, he gives an example of
> what actually concerns him, what he is labeling "child abuse."
> Surprisingly, it isn't the situation of children suffering over the threat
> of Hell. His example consists of three children dressed in Christmas
> costumes in a nativity scene. One of them is identified as a Christian, one
> a Jew, and one a Muslim. He was angered that these children were being
> raised to believe these three respective faiths. He thought they should be
> raised without a religion so that they could decide on their own at
> adulthood whether to be religious.
>
> Note that he considers it to be "bizarre" that parents are allowed to raise
> their children according to their own faiths. It is this, not the threat of
> Hell, that he labels child abuse. Merely raising a child as a Christian is
> "child abuse," documented here in his own words.

Nope, referring to a child as a christian child because of his
parents' religion is what Dawkins is talking about.

>
> Now Pim, Dawkins is not merely interested in stopping chidren's mental
> anguish. He wishes that he could stop the religious education that
> identifies a child with his parents' faith. That is a documented fact. You
> have to be blind not to see this.

Public religious education.

I applaud your interests and efforts to understand the story and I
suggest you read the whole story before jumping to conclusions. Sound
bites seldomly make for a good argument. It's the message that counts.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pvm.pandas@gmail.com
> To: philtill@aol.com
> Sent: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children
>
>
> Perhaps the first thing to do is to understand what Dawkins is and is
> not saying. Sure, we can tell our children about a better place they
> will visit when they are dying. Providing comfort to those who are
> dying hardly seems unreasonable, In fact, as Dawkins explained to
> O'Reilly, there is nothing wrong with people finding power in their
> faith, on the contrary.
> What Dawkins however is pointing out that children do suffer negative
> consequences from the concept of hell. Surely as parents we should be
> aware of how our words affect our children.
> Does this mean that children will have to be taken away from their
> religious parents? Of course not.
> Why do we tell children fairy tales and other children stories?
> Exactly because children have a very strong imagination and are very
> impressionable.
> Do atheists want to take away the freedom from religious people? I am
> sure that there are some who would propose this but I doubt that this
> is what Dawkins has in mind, in fact, I am pretty sure that he would
> argue quite the opposite.
> Atheist and Christians alike have the same responsibities towards
> their children.
>
> On 4/28/07, philtill@aol.com <philtill@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have not followed the entire discussion so I apologize if the following
> > point has already been made.
> >
> > To me the most horrifying concept -- the one that would cause most mental
> > anguish to a child -- is not Hell. Rather, it is the concept that says
> > humanity is simply a material phenomena, that there is no God, no
> afterlife,
> > no ultimate basis for moral law, no meaning, no moral freedom, no reality
> > behind love, and no justice (which must include Hell). Do you wish to sit
> > at the bedside of a dying child and tell him that after a few more
> minutes
> > of suffering he will cease to exist and will never get to see the
> sunshine
> > any more? Is that the kind of teaching that makes children happy? During
> > the periods of my life when I have been tempted to disbelief, I was most
> > horrified at these hopelessly dehumanizing ideas, and desperately scared
> > that they might be true. Can you imagine the horror of teaching these
> > things to a child? In my book, that is the true child abuse.
> >
> > If Dawkins' arguments are true, then perhaps the atheists rather than the
> > Christians should lose the right to teach their beliefs to their own
> > children. Maybe all of his hinting around that taking children away from
> > parents is not too far off the table should be turned around and applied
> to
> > atheists, instead.
> >
> > I point this out because the game that Dawkins is playing against
> Christians
> > can be played equally against atheists. Doesn't Dawkins realize that the
> > freedoms enjoyed by Christians are the same freedoms enjoyed by atheists?
> > They were originally given by a Christian majority in order to protection
> > the freedoms of the minority, which included the atheists. But now, for
> the
> > atheists to try to take away this freedom from the very group that
> granted
> > it to them is outrageous.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: alexanian@uncw.edu
> > To: pvm.pandas@gmail.com
> > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> > Sent: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:01 PM
> > Subject: RE: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children
> >
> >
> > In the former Soviet Union, an atheistic state, people that spoke about
> > religion, freedom and so on were interned, at worst, in mental
> institutions
> > if
> > not in graves. Christian Armenians would not be able to baptize their
> > children
> > nor the youth attend church, which would lead to exclusion from higher
> > education. In communist, atheistic Cuba, schoolchildren are taught how to
> > read----even sympathetic, ignorant Americans brag of the 100 % literacy
> in
> > Cuba-just to be able to be indoctrinated via textbooks. Surely, the
> greatest
> > of
> > all atheist Dawkins would do no less. I believe Dawkins is so sure of the
> > truth
> > that is trapped in his simian-evolved-skull that his reprisal against
> > Christians
> > would make the Spanish Inquisition look like a walk in the park.
> >
> >
> > Moorad
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sat 4/28/2007 10:28 PM
> > To: Alexanian, Moorad
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children
> >
> >
> >
> > I am far more interested in the nonsense said by Christians about
> > Dawkins. Like some of your uncorroborated claims
> >
> > On 4/28/07, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> > > I suggest you approach Dawkins and defend us of all the nonsense he
> says
> > about
> > Christians!
> > >
> > >
> > > Moorad
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of PvM
> > > Sent: Sat 4/28/2007 5:11 PM
> > > To: Iain Strachan
> > > Cc: Ted Davis; asa@lists.calvin.edu
> > > Subject: 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
> from
> > AOL at AOL.com.
> >
>
> ________________________________
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
> AOL at AOL.com.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 29 00:58:56 2007