Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

*if religious practices or other practices can or does cause harm to
our children, is it worth reconsidering them or adapting them to the
minds of children? We are quite protective of our children in many
aspects and perhaps these are not much dissimilar?*

These are valid concerns, and indeed should be discussed and addressed -- at
the level of churches (and mosques, synagogues, etc.) and families, not at
the level of the state, and certainly not through the exercise of state
power. I'd suggest that most religious traditions continually address these
concerns internally and are by and large pretty good at doing so. I know
that the ways in which my children are instructed in the Christian faith are
in many ways more sensitive to their emotional development than some of the
ways in which kids of my generation were instructed. This is another major
problem with Dawkins' facile understanding of religion -- he has no sense at
all of the varied, complex, dialogical nature of faith communities. To him
they are all one monolithic thing, which is the definition of blind
prejudice.

On 4/30/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I guess it all comes down to how one defines 'traditional' religions
> and determine why they should be exempted. It's exactly because some
> of our more cherished values are derived from them that we may want to
> consider their strengths and weaknesses, as well as the impact on the
> health and well being of our children (and adults).
>
> But the question is not really the role of the state, as much as the
> role of us parents. Although I see nothing that protects so called
> traditional religions and not what some consider less traditional
> religions. Again, the distinction between the two seems often quite
> irrelevant and certainly, just because our ancestors were used to a
> particular tradition, does not make the tradition more or less
> relevant or even right or wrong?
>
> You have already accepted tha tthe state can intervene with religious
> practices, and reject them as being non-traditional. I fail to see how
> tradition can in any way be seen as a protective shield against any
> (reasonable) scrutiny. But as I said before, I believe that the issue
> of state intervention is but a minor part of the issue at hand which
> is if religious practices or other practices can or does cause harm to
> our children, is it worth reconsidering them or adapting them to the
> minds of children? We are quite protective of our children in many
> aspects and perhaps these are not much dissimilar?
>
> I will be unable to attend to this list in the next week or so and I
> hope to continue these discussions.
>
> Pim
>
> On 4/30/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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 14:57:45 2007