Richard Dawkins and Religious Child Abuse

Table of Contents: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=CF5E5764D31B17F9

Richard Dawkins seems to forget the implication of his view on religious child abuse. He actually thinks that merely labeling a child a religious name qualifies as abuse! Although he never said he'll take children from their religious homes from their parents in his book "The God Delusion", he does say he would not suggest this practice. However, since he thinks raising a child with a religious education in the privacy of your own home is unambiguously child abuse, why have them stay at home then? I mean, they'll obviously be "abused" by their religious parents, right? So, the logic of Richard Dawkins' thinking is this: children are being abused at home, so let's leave them at home to be abused anyway! Excuse Francis Collins and William Lane Craig for thinking that abused children implies that they should be separated from their abusive parents! Oh, my! Who ever heard of such a thing?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Richard
• Dawkins
• Child
• Abuse
• Religion
• Label
• Hell
• God
• Delusion
• Atheism
• State
• Francis
• Collins
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Atheist
• New
• Atheists
• yt:crop=16:9

[Habalabama]

Dawkins is making the simple point that whenever you hear the term "christian child" thrown around, you should point out that what is actually meant is "child of christian parents". By projecting your faith onto your child, you are violating their integrity as thinking individuals. Just like the feminists once had to raise general consciousness to change the slogan "one man, one vote" into "one person, one vote". It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination EQUATE it to other, more direct,abuse.

[drcraigvideos]

@Habalabama Oh, but when an atheist teach children about atheism, well, by jo, that just can't be a "violation of their integrity", because we all know that it's impossible for atheists to do anything wrong, right? Anyway...

[prockets337]

drcraigvideos you have completely missed the point of what Dawkins is saying. He is NOT saying that parents are being abusive by teaching their kids religion. He is saying that society is being abusive to kids by labelling them with the religion of their parents when they are too young to know any better. It is not a case of the kids "staying with their abusive parents" because the parents are not being abusive. It is society that is doing the abusing. He wants to change society.

[drcraigvideos]

LOL! What's the difference? It's abuse for society to label children with religious names, but it's not abuse when parents label their children with religious names? Whatever.

[prockets337]

It's subtle, but there is a big difference.

It means that WLC's (and your) criticism of RD (at least in this case) is offbase. If you want to criticize RD, criticize him for what he actually says. If you take what he says, misinterpret it and then exagerate your misinterpretation to end up very far from what he did say in an attempt to make him look bad, you do a disservice to your side of the argument.

citizenghosttown has it right, WLC's argument should be "it is not abuse because..."

[drcraigvideos]

"It's subtle, but there is a big difference." You haven't shown that to be the case. All you did in your reply is attribute a position I never held to. In other words, you're just knocking down a strawman. After I exposed the falsehood in your thinking you just attacked me. Typical.

[eubanksd]

Child neglect involves no physical abuse whatsoever. What do you have to say about child neglect?

Don't bother, I'm sure your response won't be convincing.

[oldarney]

For the sake of freedom of speech, yes keep them with their parents. Hopefully one day they will think for themselves and see that Religion is just one of many stymies toward rational, studied and logical thinking.

[drcraigvideos]

Yes, I think it's ok for a child to be separated by their abusive parents. So, sue me. You think they should still be together, you're a sicko.

[citizenghosttown]

@drcraigvideos

Abuse is abuse? Sorry, but the law doesn't see it that way.

You have every right to lie to your kids, to terrorize them and inflict psychological damage on them. In fact, all of religion DEPENDS on that right. (which of course is Dawkins point).

What's ironic is that YOU apparently embrace the facistic notion that the state HAS the power to seize children who are not physically abused, but who are lied to and scared by adults.

Is that REALLY your view? Wow.