Topic: 'Being raised Catholic is worse than child abuse' - Richard Dawkins

[OrthoNoob]

How do you expect to be respected with such gross statement ?

What, my edit? I happen to think it's true. You can respect me or not, at your leisure; it's a free country.

[J Michael]

JamesR--

Everything that Kerdy wrote above, I second and fully endorse---100%.

You see, parents for the most part do the very best they can.  And they ALL make mistakes.  Many mistakes.  Parents who have a faith (ANY faith--yes, even Muslim or Buddhist or Bahai or whatever) usually think it's best to raise their children in that faith.  That's one way faith gets "propagated"--we share it with and teach it to our children.  Christians tend to take their children to their Christian church.  That helps to teach and propagate the faith.  Do you want to tell me that a 1 year old, a 2 year old, a 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, etc. year old knows better than their parents?  Do you want to tell me that a screaming, kicking, flailing 2 or 3 year old is doing so because his parents are *forcing* him to go to church?  Really?  REALLY??  Try again....

As I said before, the crux of your issue is an issue you have within the context of the totality of your relationship with your own parents, and you're projecting that onto all other parents and children quite inappropriately.  Deal with your parents and your relationship with them.  Pray.  Seek guidance from your priest (you *do* have a priest, don't you?), maybe even get some psychological counseling.  In other words....deal with it.

If and when you grow up and have children, you will know what I and Kerdy and theistgal and others here are talking about.  In the meantime, maybe you should write and opine about things that you have actual knowledge and experience of without assuming that your issues are others' issues.

Also know, too, that NONE of us, not a single individual, survives childhood without scars--some have more, some of less--but we all have them.  Deal with it.

And may you have a blessed Nativity feast--Merry Christmas!!!

[JamesR]

Well I guess I'll try to take into consideration the advice of you old folks. However, the ad hominems about not having children irritates me because I practically raise my younger siblings as if they were my children. Anyhow, moving on, Kerdy earlier mentioned that he hates the liberal practice of equating all religions as being equal and not distinguishing between the Truth and false religions.

My response is this: Prove it! How can you prove that your religion is the Truth and that the others are false? The point is that any religion will claim that their religion is the Truth and the others are lies, and so unless you can prove that, then they have to be regarded as equal. I'm not denying that Orthodoxy is the truth--because I personally have experienced it--but face it, most people have not. The fact of the matter is that saying your religion is the Truth and that the others are false is sort of pointless because practically every religion--except for some weird eastern Hindu-type relativist religions--assert that their religion is true and the others are all false.

As for Dawkins however, he sort of gets more credit than he deserves. Dawkins is like the Beatles/Tupac Shakur of the atheist world in the sense that he gets the most attention and praise, yet he is not even close to being the most skilled or talented at the practice of his respective genre. People like him because he is popular, commercialized overly-simplified atheism with witty one liners. No offense, but kind of like CS Lewis and Christianity--except, at least in his formal debates and non-published essays, Lewis was actually very intelligent and deep, but in his books he is very simple and basic. The age of atheism died with Nietzche and Sartyre.

[Kerdy]

Kerdy earlier mentioned that he hates the liberal practice of equating all religions as being equal and not distinguishing between the Truth and false religions.

My response is this: Prove it! How can you prove that your religion is the Truth and that the others are false?

These are two separate and distinct topics for discussion.  One being a parenting issue, the other being theological in nature.

In relation to parenting, you (parents) don’t have to prove anything to your child.  This is your (James) mistake of understanding.  You teach your child what you believe to be the truth.  Hopefully, the child learns and becomes a better person, but ultimately, this same child will be exposed to various religions and influences and must make his or her own decision.  While the child is at home and being raised, the parent is held responsible for his or her teaching, growing, learning, etc.  The child should respect the parent and the parent’s position of responsibility by being a good steward.  Once the child is grown and leaves home, he or she is now responsible for their own choices.  

While I was growing up, my parents didn’t go to church, but they made me go and I am thankful they did.  I hold no animosity toward them for this.  I even once, as a child, asked my father why he forced me to go to church but didn’t attend himself.  He replied, “I want to you to be a better person than I am.”  With my own children, sometimes I make them go to church, sometimes I don’t.  Normally I give them the choice of going with me or their mother, as she is still a Baptist.  This is my choice, not theirs.  However, if I say they go with me, they go with me and I ensure they understand the differences between Baptist and Orthodox.  They have Orthodox prayer books which my wife uses at night with them.  There is good to learn from both so we don’t do an “either or” option.  My job is to teach them and that is what I am doing.  Of course, this is a very basic overview and I will decline the specifics as it is my internal family issue.

In relation to the theological, no one will ever prove what you want proven.  This is your individual journey to make and either you find enough to convince you or you don’t, but again, as an adult it is your choice and your responsibility to make the right choice.

[xariskai]

Biologist, philosopher of science, and atheist Michael Ruse says Dawkins is an embarrassment to atheists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lQ69VVR4gc

[Opus118]

Kerdy earlier mentioned that he hates the liberal practice of equating all religions as being equal and not distinguishing between the Truth and false religions.

My response is this: Prove it! How can you prove that your religion is the Truth and that the others are false?

These are two separate and distinct topics for discussion.  One being a parenting issue, the other being theological in nature.

In relation to parenting, you (parents) don’t have to prove anything to your child.  This is your (James) mistake of understanding.  You teach your child what you believe to be the truth.  Hopefully, the child learns and becomes a better person, but ultimately, this same child will be exposed to various religions and influences and must make his or her own decision.  While the child is at home and being raised, the parent is held responsible for his or her teaching, growing, learning, etc.  The child should respect the parent and the parent’s position of responsibility by being a good steward.  Once the child is grown and leaves home, he or she is now responsible for their own choices.  

While I was growing up, my parents didn’t go to church, but they made me go and I am thankful they did.  I hold no animosity toward them for this.  I even once, as a child, asked my father why he forced me to go to church but didn’t attend himself.  He replied, “I want to you to be a better person than I am.”  With my own children, sometimes I make them go to church, sometimes I don’t.  Normally I give them the choice of going with me or their mother, as she is still a Baptist.  This is my choice, not theirs.  However, if I say they go with me, they go with me and I ensure they understand the differences between Baptist and Orthodox.  They have Orthodox prayer books which my wife uses at night with them.  There is good to learn from both so we don’t do an “either or” option.  My job is to teach them and that is what I am doing.  Of course, this is a very basic overview and I will decline the specifics as it is my internal family issue.

In relation to the theological, no one will ever prove what you want proven.  This is your individual journey to make and either you find enough to convince you or you don’t, but again, as an adult it is your choice and your responsibility to make the right choice.

I thought this was a pretty good post Kerdy. This is a fly-by posting because I do not read thread with Dawkins as the subject matter.

[OrthoNoob]

Well I guess I'll try to take into consideration the advice of you old folks. However, the ad hominems about not having children irritates me because I practically raise my younger siblings as if they were my children. Anyhow, moving on, Kerdy earlier mentioned that he hates the liberal practice of equating all religions as being equal and not distinguishing between the Truth and false religions.

I was the one who said that.

My response is this: Prove it! How can you prove that your religion is the Truth and that the others are false? The point is that any religion will claim that their religion is the Truth and the others are lies, and so unless you can prove that, then they have to be regarded as equal.

No, they don't. We can, no, we must act on our beliefs, even when they aren't proven beyond doubt. This is why you were baptized, remember?

I'm not denying that Orthodoxy is the truth--because I personally have experienced it--but face it, most people have not. The fact of the matter is that saying your religion is the Truth and that the others are false is sort of pointless because practically every religion--except for some weird eastern Hindu-type relativist religions--assert that their religion is true and the others are all false.

No, it's not pointless. If we disagreed on which religion were true, I could sort of see how you could make this argument. But since we agree, demanding that I prove to you what you already believe is kind of absurd. With very few exceptions, there is some possibility that any of us is wrong about any given thing. The criminal justice system can be wrong. That doesn't stop them meting out punishments. Legislators can be wrong. That doesn't stop them making laws. Parents can be wrong. That doesn't stop them setting the rules for their children. And the list goes on. "Proof" on the strictest possible interpretation for Orthodoxy doesn't exist, at least not in any form that's going to convince everyone. But reasonable belief does, and reasonable belief can be rationally acted on. In other words, your demand for "proof" is spurious.

[Nicene]

This is alot of people don't take dawkins seriously.

[Daedelus1138]

   I can understand James' sentiments even if I don't agree with them completely.   A child shouldn't be subject to heavy religiosity or disciplines, its not the time in ones life to focus on adult spiritual concerns.  At the same time, we are all going to grow up having secular and religious ideologies thrust upon us (in the US, consumerism and capitalism are two common ones).  Atheists are no different in this regard.

[theistgal]

OK, so tell me how this would work in real life:

It's Sunday morning. The parents are getting dressed and ready to go to Divine Liturgy.

What are they supposed to do, just leave the kids home alone in a dark house, to watch TV and eat junk food?

How is THAT not "child abuse"?

[biro]

OK, so tell me how this would work in real life:

It's Sunday morning. The parents are getting dressed and ready to go to Divine Liturgy.

What are they supposed to do, just leave the kids home alone in a dark house, to watch TV and eat junk food?

How is THAT not "child abuse"?

Good one.

[Asteriktos]

OK, so tell me how this would work in real life:

It's Sunday morning. The parents are getting dressed and ready to go to Divine Liturgy.

What are they supposed to do, just leave the kids home alone in a dark house, to watch TV and eat junk food?

How is THAT not "child abuse"?

You should drop them off at the natural history museum before Church   

[Jason.Wike]

And Dawkins basis this on some dumb stereotypes, right?

Yes, himself.

He was raised as an Anglican.

[Jason.Wike]

....to the millions of LGBT kids whose parents force them to attend pseudo-scientific dangerous "gay-conversion" therapy...

I'm convinced now that JamesR just makes up stuff to be angry. There's a handful of "gay-conversion therapy" practitioners at best, there's no way there are "millions of LGBT kids" being subjected to such things.

[J Michael]

OK, so tell me how this would work in real life:

It's Sunday morning. The parents are getting dressed and ready to go to Divine Liturgy.

What are they supposed to do, just leave the kids home alone in a dark house, to watch TV and eat junk food?

How is THAT not "child abuse"?

Good one.

+1

[WeldeMikael]

How do you expect to be respected with such gross statement ?

What, my edit? I happen to think it's true. You can respect me or not, at your leisure; it's a free country.

No, Dawkins' statement  

[Kerdy]

And Dawkins basis this on some dumb stereotypes, right?

Yes, himself.

He was raised as an Anglican.

Ok.  I'm not entirely certain how this changes things.

[Asteriktos]

He was raised as an Anglican.

But hasn't he said that he realised as a child (like 8 or something?) that he didn't believe in all the Christian doctrines/practices?

[JamesR]

So how come you all assert that parents should have the right to force their religion on their child and that the child should submit, yet you venerate Saints like St. Christina of Tyre who were Canonized precisely because they refused to adhere to their parents' religion and practiced their own? 

[Jason.Wike]

And Dawkins basis this on some dumb stereotypes, right?

Yes, himself.

He was raised as an Anglican.

Ok.  I'm not entirely certain how this changes things.

It sounded like you were trying to say his idea of Catholic upbringing was legitimate as he had first hand knowledge of it, in which case it is (as he did not).

[Jason.Wike]

So how come you all assert that parents should have the right to force their religion on their child and that the child should submit, yet you venerate Saints like St. Christina of Tyre who were Canonized precisely because they refused to adhere to their parents' religion and practiced their own? 

Because the significant fact is not that they were rebellious teenagers but that they rejected evil for God and were martyrs for it.

A cranky teenager that just doesn't want to go to church because they like masturbating and feel ire that anyone dare disagree with it (which really is the vast majority of teenagers that reject God) isn't exactly commendable or of noble intent.

[JamesR]

So how come you all assert that parents should have the right to force their religion on their child and that the child should submit, yet you venerate Saints like St. Christina of Tyre who were Canonized precisely because they refused to adhere to their parents' religion and practiced their own? 

Because the significant fact is not that they were rebellious teenagers but that they rejected evil for God and were martyrs for it.

So what about present teenagers in this day who actually do find their own religion, become dedicated to it and refuse to adhere to their parents' religion because in their mind they are standing up for the truth? But oh wait, let me guess, if it's not YOUR religion then it doesn't count...hypocrisy.

[Jason.Wike]

So how come you all assert that parents should have the right to force their religion on their child and that the child should submit, yet you venerate Saints like St. Christina of Tyre who were Canonized precisely because they refused to adhere to their parents' religion and practiced their own? 

Because the significant fact is not that they were rebellious teenagers but that they rejected evil for God and were martyrs for it.

So what about present teenagers in this day who actually do find their own religion, become dedicated to it and refuse to adhere to their parents' religion because in their mind they are standing up for the truth? But oh wait, let me guess, if it's not YOUR religion then it doesn't count...hypocrisy.

I don't have a religion so your feigned superiority is pointless. Anyway, going from Christianity to most other religions would be a step backwards regardless of how devout they are. If they became Muslims and paid attention to the Quran and Hadiths they would become criminals, if they became Hindus and went past the sanitized version taught to westerners they would worship piles of cow poo or even worse - join one of the sects that eat dead people or drink blood straight from the still quivering necks of decapitated goats.

[Kerdy]

So how come you all assert that parents should have the right to force their religion on their child and that the child should submit, yet you venerate Saints like St. Christina of Tyre who were Canonized precisely because they refused to adhere to their parents' religion and practiced their own? 

Because the significant fact is not that they were rebellious teenagers but that they rejected evil for God and were martyrs for it.

So what about present teenagers in this day who actually do find their own religion, become dedicated to it and refuse to adhere to their parents' religion because in their mind they are standing up for the truth? But oh wait, let me guess, if it's not YOUR religion then it doesn't count...hypocrisy.

As a child, what are you commanded to do in regard to your parents?  Focus on that.  Let them be held responsible for their parenting.  I'll never understand a child's rush to grow up and be on their own.  It's not as much fun as it once sounded.

[Kerdy]

And Dawkins basis this on some dumb stereotypes, right?

Yes, himself.

He was raised as an Anglican.

Ok.  I'm not entirely certain how this changes things.

It sounded like you were trying to say his idea of Catholic upbringing was legitimate as he had first hand knowledge of it, in which case it is (as he did not).

I see how I could have elaborated.  My apologies.  For Dawkins, it doesn't matter what group of Christian you are, he thinks we are all crazy.  He interchanges group titles with the same statements.  He's a hater.

[JamesR]

As a child, what are you commanded to do in regard to your parents?  Focus on that.  Let them be held responsible for their parenting.

Once again, St. Christina of Tyre did not respect or honour her parents by throwing her father's pagan idols out of the window and by refusing to convert for him. Yet, you venerate her 

[Kerdy]

As a child, what are you commanded to do in regard to your parents?  Focus on that.  Let them be held responsible for their parenting.

Once again, St. Christina of Tyre did not respect or honour her parents by throwing her father's pagan idols out of the window and by refusing to convert for him. Yet, you venerate her 

Do your parents worship pagan gods?

I don't think you could miss the point here any better if you actually tried.

[OrthoNoob]

Kerdy,

James will not distinguish Truth from error in this regard, because he is super-rationally (and by that I do not mean "very rationally," but rather "in a manner considered to be above reason") committed to treating Truth and error equally in this regard until some undefined "proof" is presented to him that Orthodoxy is the Truth. As such, you will continue to talk past him until he recognizes that he is making an assumption here, that others do not share it, and that it may not be warranted, which I personally think he is unlikely to do, though I would love to be proven wrong.

Merry Christmas to all,
OrthoNoob.

P.S. To WeldeMikael: Ah. I misunderstood, it seems. Carry on.

[zoarthegleaner]

Being Richard Dawkins is worse than child abuse; you can be rescued from child abuse.


John Dunn

[Kerdy]

Having to listen or read Dawkins, or anyone similar, should be considered aggravated assault.

[LBK]

Having to listen or read Dawkins, or anyone similar, should be considered aggravated assault.

My, you're being polite. 

[Kerdy]

Having to listen or read Dawkins, or anyone similar, should be considered aggravated assault.

My, you're being polite. 

Sorry.  I was trying to get into the whole (blank) is (some form of violent act) mentality.  I guess I went a little overboard.   

[Jetavan]

Dawkins says he himself was sexually abused:

Incidentally, I was myself sexually abused by a teacher when I was about nine or ten years old. It was a very unpleasant and embarrassing experience, but the mental trauma was soon exorcised by comparing notes with my contemporaries who had suffered it previously at the hands of the same master. Thank goodness, I have never personally experienced what it is like to believe – really and truly and deeply believe ­– in hell. But I think it can be plausibly argued that such a deeply held belief might cause a child more long-lasting mental trauma than the temporary embarrassment of mild physical abuse.

Anecdotes and plausibility arguments, however, need to be backed up by systematic research, and I would be interested to hear from psychologists whether there is real evidence bearing on the question. My expectation would be that violent, painful, repeated sexual abuse, especially by a family member such as a father or grandfather, probably has a more damaging effect on a child’s mental well-being than sincerely believing in hell. But ‘sexual abuse’ covers a wide spectrum of sins, and I suspect that research would show belief in hell to be more traumatic than the sort of mild feeling-up that I suffered.

[Jason.Wike]

Dawkins says he himself was sexually abused:

Incidentally, I was myself sexually abused by a teacher when I was about nine or ten years old. It was a very unpleasant and embarrassing experience, but the mental trauma was soon exorcised by comparing notes with my contemporaries who had suffered it previously at the hands of the same master. Thank goodness, I have never personally experienced what it is like to believe – really and truly and deeply believe ­– in hell. But I think it can be plausibly argued that such a deeply held belief might cause a child more long-lasting mental trauma than the temporary embarrassment of mild physical abuse.

Anecdotes and plausibility arguments, however, need to be backed up by systematic research, and I would be interested to hear from psychologists whether there is real evidence bearing on the question. My expectation would be that violent, painful, repeated sexual abuse, especially by a family member such as a father or grandfather, probably has a more damaging effect on a child’s mental well-being than sincerely believing in hell. But ‘sexual abuse’ covers a wide spectrum of sins, and I suspect that research would show belief in hell to be more traumatic than the sort of mild feeling-up that I suffered.

It would be if the idea was that you are going to hell no matter what. He seems to be completely unaware that belief in hell is accompanied by the belief that its completely possible, and easy for children*, to avoid. If there's a child out there that is so bad that the idea they are going to hell enters their mind then their family life is more than screwed up.


*Since they are physically capable of less sins and normally not even aware of some of the possibilities.

[Carefree T]

I have yet to understand why anyone even listens/reads Dawkins.  He is an angry little man, nothing more.  Any accomplishment he has made is overshadowed by this fact.

Not to mention he's completely inept at the only thing he thinks he is good at. Check out "The Dawkins Delusion?" by Alister McGrath. The book is simply a point-by-point dissection of "The God Delusion" pointing out his inability to correctly construct the simplest logical syllogisms.

[theistgal]

It would be if the idea was that you are going to hell no matter what. He seems to be completely unaware that belief in hell is accompanied by the belief that its completely possible, and easy for children*, to avoid. If there's a child out there that is so bad that the idea they are going to hell enters their mind then their family life is more than screwed up.


*Since they are physically capable of less sins and normally not even aware of some of the possibilities.

And since Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven was pretty much chock-full of children, it would stand to reason that it's virtually, if not completely, impossible for a child to wind up in Hell. At least that's my theological heterodox non-Orthodox opinion.