Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

The petition that Dawkins signed was against the indoctrination of children,
not just labeling them. He later retracted his signing, but not the part
about indoctrination. And, he is clearly against parents indoctrinating
children with their own beliefs.

Pim you are not smarter or more well read than EVERYONE else on this list,
you are not the only one that understands Dawkins for what he is really
saying. And I will say here in a nutshell:

 Dawkins message is that religion is a falsehood and a dangerous idea, and
since it is such a powerful meme the only way to stop its propogation is to
stop parents, (or institutions, or schools,) from indoctrinating children
with their relgious beliefs.

----- Original Message -----
From: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
To: <philtill@aol.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 12:58 AM
Subject: 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.
>

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 07:49:44 2007