Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

But the issue is not that black and white. Sure, one 'solution' is to
prevent parents from teaching their children traditional religious
beliefs, but there is a who sliding scale of solutions and
considerations. In other words, the validity of your argument depends
on the per se' issue.
It's not that any and all 'traditional religious beliefs' are per se
instances of mental cruelty, but rather the recognition that not all
traditional religious beliefs are without potential consequences on
the physical and emotional health of our children.

I doubt that Dawkins would propose that the state somehow can
prohibit parents from teaching religious values to their children. If
we are to dismiss Dawkins' arguments out of fear that this would lead
to a totalitarian solution, then perhaps we are missing an opportunity
to address and contemplate these issues. Surely, there are more ways
to deal with this knowledge than fearing an all out ban on religious
teachings by parents?

On 4/30/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 14:07:48 2007