Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

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 15:53:13 2007