Dawkins Choice: Abuse and Religion
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
In the original, which I quoted in full.SAM said:
The "details" added by the creator by way of explanation are of course interesting, but even they do not add up to treating parental religious upbringing as child abuse, or even begin to suggest removing children from their parents home in cases of parental religious upbringing.
And of course the reality of the context of all this scary stuff is a legal system in which children have actually been removed from their parents' home partly on the grounds of lack of religious upbringing, and put into theistic homes by preference of the social workers and court system.
And a world in which WC Field's will's attempt to found an orphanage specifically without theistic religious instruction or affiliation was tied up in court on theistic concerns, and eventually drained of its funding for legal fees, and abandoned.
And a world in which a whole range of privileges - from conscientious objector status to riding a horse on the highway - depend on one's public theistic allegiances.
So - - -
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
The petition in question only applies to state institutions, not one's home life.
How do you define illegal in your world?
And the details are what Downing Street received and responded to.
I wonder, would atheists be willing to give up this right?
SAM:
I'm disappointed in you.
You appear to lack the intellectual honesty to give a fair hearing to views that might challenge your own views.
I truly expected more from you.
You seem to be confusing me with Dawkins. Don't assume that I agree with Dawkins on everything.
The answers to your questions are:
1. What do you mean by a "Christian child" or a "Muslim child"? Do you mean a child who has investigated the matter thoroughly and decided to become a "confirmed" Christian, for example, or do you mean a child with Christian parents? I am confused.
2. I have said nothing about parents abusing their children's rights.
3. Atheists, like theists, are a diverse lot. Being atheist, in and of itself, in no way indicates a healthy mind or a healthy independence. Why should it? It's only a position on belief in gods. Why do you think there are wider implications?
4. Am I promoting atheist pride? No. I find that a strange thing for you to ask. I also need to know what you're thinking. Are you thinking of "atheist" pride as an analogue to "gay pride", or something similar? If you are asking whether I think that atheists should not be ashamed to be atheists, in the same way that gay people should not be ashamed to be gay, than yes, I do think that. Do I think gay people or atheists should be out to "convert" people, explicitly? No, I don't. Trying to "convert" a theist by extolling the joys of atheism is as likely to be successful as trying to "convert" a gay person by extolling the joys of heterosexuality. (The analogy far from a perfect one, I admit.)
I'm disappointed in you.
You appear to lack the intellectual honesty to give a fair hearing to views that might challenge your own views.
I truly expected more from you.
You seem to be confusing me with Dawkins. Don't assume that I agree with Dawkins on everything.
The answers to your questions are:
1. What do you mean by a "Christian child" or a "Muslim child"? Do you mean a child who has investigated the matter thoroughly and decided to become a "confirmed" Christian, for example, or do you mean a child with Christian parents? I am confused.
2. I have said nothing about parents abusing their children's rights.
3. Atheists, like theists, are a diverse lot. Being atheist, in and of itself, in no way indicates a healthy mind or a healthy independence. Why should it? It's only a position on belief in gods. Why do you think there are wider implications?
4. Am I promoting atheist pride? No. I find that a strange thing for you to ask. I also need to know what you're thinking. Are you thinking of "atheist" pride as an analogue to "gay pride", or something similar? If you are asking whether I think that atheists should not be ashamed to be atheists, in the same way that gay people should not be ashamed to be gay, than yes, I do think that. Do I think gay people or atheists should be out to "convert" people, explicitly? No, I don't. Trying to "convert" a theist by extolling the joys of atheism is as likely to be successful as trying to "convert" a gay person by extolling the joys of heterosexuality. (The analogy far from a perfect one, I admit.)
sam
there were two petitions
the retraction over here
Yes. In my all too cursory reading of the petition (if I had read the whole thing more carefully, I would have noticed the coercive phraseology and would not have signed it) I of course assumed that it referred to schools, not parents in the privacy of the home. I am sure that was also the intention of the petition organizer. The very idea of giving that control freak Tony Blair any more power over people than he already has appals me, and probably appals the author of the petition too. The problem in Britain is that Blair and his colleagues are hell bent on increasing the influence of religion in British schools. I want to reduce the power of religion in the schools. Blair wants to increase it. I now see that, since the petition lamentably failed to mention that it referred to schools, it can all too easily be read as an attempt to expand government power beyond the schools and into the home.
Incidentally, another reason why I would not have signed, if I had read the supporting statement as well as the petition itself, is that I am positively in favour of two aspects of religious education. I advocate teaching the Bible as literature. And I advocate teaching comparative religion as an important anthropological phenomenon. Schools should teach: ‘Christians believe X, Muslims believe Y, Buddhists believe Z.’ But a teacher should never say something like ‘You are a Christian child and we Christians believe …’ *(dawkins)
there were two petitions
the retraction over here
Yes. In my all too cursory reading of the petition (if I had read the whole thing more carefully, I would have noticed the coercive phraseology and would not have signed it) I of course assumed that it referred to schools, not parents in the privacy of the home. I am sure that was also the intention of the petition organizer. The very idea of giving that control freak Tony Blair any more power over people than he already has appals me, and probably appals the author of the petition too. The problem in Britain is that Blair and his colleagues are hell bent on increasing the influence of religion in British schools. I want to reduce the power of religion in the schools. Blair wants to increase it. I now see that, since the petition lamentably failed to mention that it referred to schools, it can all too easily be read as an attempt to expand government power beyond the schools and into the home.
Incidentally, another reason why I would not have signed, if I had read the supporting statement as well as the petition itself, is that I am positively in favour of two aspects of religious education. I advocate teaching the Bible as literature. And I advocate teaching comparative religion as an important anthropological phenomenon. Schools should teach: ‘Christians believe X, Muslims believe Y, Buddhists believe Z.’ But a teacher should never say something like ‘You are a Christian child and we Christians believe …’ *(dawkins)
Gustav:
What exactly do you expect from Dawkins? Is he supposed to give up his time and effort for free, for some reason?
Compared to the huge amounts of cash that evangelical churches are raking in with every Sunday service, the amount Dawkins is making is utterly negligible. Do you really think selling a few "hoodies" compares to the funding behind the anti-evolution movement, for example?
What exactly do you expect from Dawkins? Is he supposed to give up his time and effort for free, for some reason?
Compared to the huge amounts of cash that evangelical churches are raking in with every Sunday service, the amount Dawkins is making is utterly negligible. Do you really think selling a few "hoodies" compares to the funding behind the anti-evolution movement, for example?
why would i compare?
anyway, i am investigating the guy's credentials
he is shaping up to be a quack. a pseudo scientist
a conferred professorship
even if he is legit...
"The appointees should have the opportunity to continue their scientific work. This is best accomplished if their appointment in the Department closest to their field would be held jointly with the Department of Continuing Education. While being firmly based in Oxford the appointees should receive every possible support from the University for travel and for visiting professorships. In accordance to this, their teaching and administrative responsibilities within Oxford should be correspondingly limited and should be directed primarily towards the educations of non-specialists. They would be expected to write books and magazine articles in any medium for the popular as well as scientific audiences, participate in public lectures, whether through the University or otherwise and generally participate in the expression of the "Public Understanding of Science"."
nary a mention of hoodies
/snicker
oh
what do you know of his financial endeavors in order to characterize as.... utterly negligible/few hoodies?
anyway, i am investigating the guy's credentials
he is shaping up to be a quack. a pseudo scientist
a conferred professorship
even if he is legit...
"The appointees should have the opportunity to continue their scientific work. This is best accomplished if their appointment in the Department closest to their field would be held jointly with the Department of Continuing Education. While being firmly based in Oxford the appointees should receive every possible support from the University for travel and for visiting professorships. In accordance to this, their teaching and administrative responsibilities within Oxford should be correspondingly limited and should be directed primarily towards the educations of non-specialists. They would be expected to write books and magazine articles in any medium for the popular as well as scientific audiences, participate in public lectures, whether through the University or otherwise and generally participate in the expression of the "Public Understanding of Science"."
nary a mention of hoodies
/snicker
oh
what do you know of his financial endeavors in order to characterize as.... utterly negligible/few hoodies?
It is the word "upbringing" that should be questioned. Are the children being indoctrinated into their parents religion or are they simply being presented the doctrines of the wide variety of religions to ponder and question?
If it is the former, the petition would have relevancy as the latter would be the accepted method, treated as any other subject of course study.
Does the "faith school" indoctrinate or does it teach? The same would therefore apply.
S.A.M:
You mean to tell me you still haven't read Dawkin's book?! And you presume to be an authority on it, as well as Dawkin's opinions regarding religion and abuse?
Then why the fuck did you start this thread by citing the quotation from Dawkin's book, and then continue to use it as a point of reference for a discussion regarding religion and child abuse? Why make all of these threads to misrepresent and then belittle Dawkins? Maybe it's that 'agenda' I was speaking of earlier. Hmmm.
What truly sickens me is that someone as intellectually dishonest as yourself is actually a research scientist.
You mean to tell me you still haven't read Dawkin's book?! And you presume to be an authority on it, as well as Dawkin's opinions regarding religion and abuse?
Then why the fuck did you start this thread by citing the quotation from Dawkin's book, and then continue to use it as a point of reference for a discussion regarding religion and child abuse? Why make all of these threads to misrepresent and then belittle Dawkins? Maybe it's that 'agenda' I was speaking of earlier. Hmmm.
What truly sickens me is that someone as intellectually dishonest as yourself is actually a research scientist.
Personal experience. A mother on the local county board that oversaw welfare management, including child placement in cases of neglect, abuse, etc. A father counseling part time at a nearby boys "reformatory" and a nearby Indian reservation. Two girlfriend professional social workers, one in charge of in home child abuse interviews. Two sets of foster parents among friendly acquaintances in the neighborhood.gustav said:
I have heard a county welfare board debate whether to remove a pair of children from a welfare recipient's home, without evidence of abuse, on the grounds that she was neglecting their upbringing; the evidence presented was that there was no TV in the house, and she never took them to church. The worry was that they were not being raised "normally". Every member of the board was an active member of a Christian church.
I have heard evidence of regular theistic religious practice and sincere theistic belief presented as miitigating circumstance and character support, in cases of child abuse and other crimes, more times than I can recall - both formally and informally.
But it's all jsut my own sayso. Do your experiences differ ?
Don't be surprised. She is the role model for Sciforums, the spokesperson who has full support of the mod and admin teams.
To go against Sam is to go against Sciforums and everything for which it stands.
A losing battle, of course.
So he never comes out and actually refutes his support of either petition, does he?
Not even the one he recanted on?
And if he was not referring to parents in their home life:
So are children who are exposed by atheist parents to atheist philosophies, not having their decision "made for them"?
He's even got people on Randi's forum holding out the proverbial collection plate.
How is that for cognitive dissonance?
Is it possible to give a fair hearing to a bigot? What about a racist? A homophobe? Someone who expresses themselves through crude metaphors? Are all opinions equally relevant?
Whats fair, James?
I don't believe anyone who discriminates on the basis of religion or atheism is equally relevant than one who does not. And I believe Dawkins represents himself. As with any other, do I need to read what they "believe" rather than what they do?
You're thinking like an atheist. If I believe in one set of values or one philosophy or one kind of moral system over another, that is what I would teach my children. Regardless of how many are out there. Just because there are many different opinions on how children should be punished, for instance, does not mean I will try out all of them, only the ones I agree with. Same as for any other value system.
How many atheists you think will emphasize to their children that the communists who killed most people in the last century were driven by the same anti-theism that drives Dawkins? After all, he is no more shy of marketing himself as an upholder of science that they did with Marxism
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Do atheist parents introduce their children as "my atheist child"? Do they refer to them as such? Or do they just introduce or refer to them by their name?
Tell me something, did your parents value you more for your religious beliefs or for yourself?
So if anyone asks an atheist in what religion they are bringing up their child, what do they say?
In fact, let me ask you: as an atheist, in what religion are you bringing up your children?
You had religious parents didn't you?
Whats the difference between how they brought you up and how you are bringing up your children?
Bells
Staff member
None. I am an atheist. My children are free to believe in whatever they so choose and join the religion of their choice when they feel they need or want to. I would never restrict them in such a fashion. Nor would I peg them as being something they very well might not be. I can't know if my children will be atheists or theists. That is something they need to determine for themselves.
If someone asks me what my children's religion is, my answer will be a short one. Their religion is their childhood. They are children and it is their individuality that matters the most, not their religion or lack of.
Firstly, I have never baptised them, or told them they need to believe in something they don't want to believe in or aren't sure about. I also don't nag like my mother nags. There is a plethora of differences, most of them minute..