Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

*First a question: Are you sure that that's an accurate description of
> Dawkins' understanding of religion?
*
Yes.

*The recent discussions in Europe about wearing
> a veil or Burka in public*

I think the policies against wearing the Burka in public are hideous,
discriminatory, and just plain stupid. The religious riots in Europe are
fueled by this kind of hateful policy.

On 4/30/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> First a question: Are you sure that that's an accurate description of
> Dawkins' understanding of religion?
>
> Again, we agree that concerns need to be addressed at the level of
> churches etc, however the state does have a role here, and a very
> difficult one as well. The recent discussions in Europe about wearing
> a veil or Burka in public is but one of many aspects where there seems
> to be a need for balance between the rights of religious people to
> pursue their faith, and the right of the individuals who may have no
> choices. State power already has a place in regulating valid concerns
> about religious practices, so the question is not whether or not state
> power has a place, but under what circumstances state power can or
> should be applied. Calling something a 'traditional value' to make it
> exempt of any such state powers seems fraught with many problems.
>
> While in older days, communities and faith were at a far more local
> level and thus were far less likely to collide, we are living in a
> world where cultures and religious beliefs included, do clash.
>
>
> On 4/30/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
>

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 15:23:44 2007