Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

*Why should we accept that the state can step in where the violence is
physical but when it involves issues of mental cruelty, we somehow
find such intervention 'totalitarian'?
*
If families teaching children their traditional religious beliefs is defined
as a per se issue of "mental cruelty" such that the state can mandate that
families not teach such beliefs to their children, the Rubicon of
totalitarianism has been crossed. I think that proposition is self-evident
and is so deeply embedded in our western democratic tradition that it should
be beyond reasonable debate.

On 4/30/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/30/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Certainly, the state's sovereignty may properly impinge on the family's
> > where a family's practices involve violence towards a family
> member. But
> > equating ordinary, historic religious beliefs and practices with
> violence,
> > and substituting the family's sovereignty with the state's in such
> matters,
> > is a long meander down the yellow brick road towards
> totalitarianism. The
> > kinds of things Dawkins suggests in this regard strike at the heart of
> open
> > democratic culture and should be despised by anyone who really cares
> about
> > justice and freedom.
>
> What does Dawkins suggest that leads you to these conclusions?
>
> For instance with the concept of hell and abuse, he quoted from a
> letter of a woman who had been exposed to both and was still
> struggling with the former. So perhaps the question should be about
> these 'ordinary beliefs and practices'. Are they really that ordinary
> and are they reasonable? And where lie the boundaries between ordinary
> and excessive?
>
> Why should we accept that the state can step in where the violence is
> physical but when it involves issues of mental cruelty, we somehow
> find such intervention 'totalitarian'?
>
> > This is particularly so when the state purports to define what religious
> beliefs a family may
> > properly perpetuate. The link between Dawkins' view of the state as
> parens patrie in matters of
> > religion and the practices of atheistic states such as Soviet Russia,
> China, and North Korea, are
> > direct and obvious.
>
> Are they really? And is this really Dawkins argument?
>
> ps. I was fascinated to hear that several US states still have laws on
> the books which prohibit atheists from holding positions of public
> office. While most likely unenforcable, it sends an interesting
> message. Equating Dawkins position with the totalitarian supression of
> faith an other liberties, misses Dawkins' point.
>
> By focusing on these strawmen we miss an opportunity to deal with a
> real issue of concern namely the cost of some of these 'ordinary'
> practices on our children.
>
> As others have reasonably pointed out, identifying these problems is
> one thing, proposing suitable , practical and reasonable actions is
> much harder. And yet, that by itself should not cause us to shy away
> from considering these issues intellectually. One may be quick to
> create strawmen about atheists rather than address their position and
> yet we object to atheists doing the same about Christians.
>
> Ironic isn't it?
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 30 13:15:12 2007