Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

No, this is one of the few things in life that I think are black-and-white.
The state cannot interfere with family instruction in traditional religions,
period. It is simply not a proper role for the state.

What about a Satanic cult in which children are mutilated? What about a
"religion" in which a David Koresh-like figure abuses his daughters?
Irrelevant red herrings. These are not the traditional religions --
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. -- with
which human beings have had millennia of experience and from which our most
cherished values mostly derive.

On 4/30/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 14:27:20 2007