What Do You Think About Them?

I actually haven’t read any of these books (except yours), yet I have an opinion anyway…

I’m glad these ideas are on the table of public discourse.

One thing that seems completely clear to me from observing people is that people don’t spontaneously question (or even recognize) their basic assumptions without external motivation to do so. People in a majority religion are often practically incapable of questioning the belief that their religion is the source of all virtue and that imposing their religion on others is a great kindness. This is why I almost always like people from minority religions better than people from majority religions: they have some concept of what freedom of religion means. It’s not a question of intelligence, it’s a question of experience.

If you’ve heard rumors of some of the arguments against Christianity, then you’re more likely to think about questions like whether the Bible is good and right, and merely being aware of these questions is beneficial in terms of realizing that imposing religion on others requires justification — it is not a self-evident good.

That said, I think the goal of “deconvert the world” can be a hindrance for succeeding at more important goals, as I’ve discussed here: Is religion the problem?

With the disclaimer that I’m too apathetic to read any of their books, I think they all deserve credit for giving atheism some media attention. Dawkins seems to receive much more criticism than he deserves. He rarely agrees with the extreme positions attributed to him. The RRS is a much better example of “extreme” atheism, but don’t expect me to hate them just so I look better in the eyes of moderates. As for Hitchens, no one seems to agree with him, at least not among liberals. Perhaps there are libertarian atheists who like him a lot?

Dawkins: I’ve read most of the TGD, seen him on video a few times and live once; I know his scientific work mostly by reputation. He’s gentle and soft-spoken in real life, even when provoked, but he says what he thinks and never bullshits. His scientific reputation is flawless (although, like all scientists, he’s not always right). I get the sense that he truly loves people, but he loves the truth more. He’s a solid but not ground-breaking philosopher.

Hitchens: God is not Great is a polemical masterpiece. My admiration for his polemics does not, however, at all transfer to any admiration for his politics. There’s no atheist party line, and he has a right to his opinion supporting the war in Iraq, and, much as I despise Islam (my wife is a Muslim apostate) I have a just as much right to hold him in contempt for that opinion, which I do. Still, no one, not even Dawkins, so thoroughly and mercilessly exposes religion’s hypocrisy, contempt for happiness and indifference to the human dimension of suffering even among the so called religious “liberals”.

You missed Daniel Dennett: The best philosopher I’ve ever read, bar none. If there were a God, Dennett would be Her prophet.

Harris: I’m glad that his work has provided a lot of exposure to atheism, but he’s a naive philosopher, even by my own amateur standards. I consider many of his positions not only mistaken but also stupid.

I don’t really care how strident or conciliatory anyone’s tone is. Everyone has to use his own voice. Dennett is the most conciliatory, Dawkins the most strident. All but Harris are pretty much spot-on as far as the truth goes. Neither do I much care for how people are portrayed in the media; the media is dominated by talentless hacks sucking up to the economic elite who couldn’t spot a blatant contradiction if it bit them in the ass and didn’t bite them in the ass.

I’ll do the Rational Response Squad question first. I think they have their place and for the most part they put out rational and educated information. At times I think they go a bit overboard and become a bit distasteful- ie the Blasphemy Challenge. Other than that I highly support what they are trying to do.

Now for that other questions:

What is everyone’s opinion on each of these authors? What do you like/dislike about them, what they have said, and their books? Do you feel their tones are too strident or not forceful enough, and why do you feel this way? What do you think are the good points they have made and the mistakes (if any) they have made? No doubt there has been much controversy over all the books and the authors, some good, some bad, and some mixed. What are you feelings/opinions on that? How fairly do think they have been characterized in the media? Has anyone met or directly spoken with any of these authors, and if so, what was that like?

I appreciate Dawkins and Harris’s ideas (I haven’t read Hitchen’s yet), but I think it could be psychologically damaging to yank the rug out from under religious extremists. It needs to be gradual and they need to learn alternatives to their current beliefs. To suddenly take this security blanket from them would be to cause them great anxiety and they would not know what to do with themselves. If someone suddenly convinced you that you cannot worship your god, you cannot speak of your god, you cannot attribute anything to that god, you’d be going nuts trying to figure out what to do with all those things, if they did not show you alternatives.

Very few people become atheists, non-theists, or agnostic overnight. It is a gradual thing which, for a lot of people involved questioning their beliefs, researching, asking questions, more research, until what they thought they believed they realize that they don’t believe it. I grew into my Humanism and I am still growing, but I learned an alternative along the way and I’m still learning.

Alternatives are the key to human fulfilment. Simple, but minor example- human life passages (or rites of passages). In churches one has baptism, marriage, and death. If you gave up religion would you have any clue of knowing that there are non-religious alternatives to those passages unless someone told you? Or would you be dreading dealing with rites of passages because you know no other place to turn to but the church to fill those needs?

Harris leaves those little life things out in his book “End of Faith”. Dawkins makes no mention of them from what I’ve seen and read. The Rational Response Team leaves them out entirely.

Human Beings have social and personal needs that need fulfilling and to suddenly pull the rug out from religious extremists, or anyone for that matter, could be disturbing if they don’t know of alternatives to fill those needs.

Given this, they lack some human compassion concerning human fulfilment and in that respect they are too forceful. However, they have pointed out what is irrational and supernatural about religious beliefs in the age of post-enlightenment and scientific discovery. They have shown what is harmful to human beings as a society concerning religion. They have pointed out that they are very spiritual in light of being non-religious and how. These are good things, but they lack explaining how human needs can be filled without religion and until that is done, no one will see that life without a belief in the supernatural can be more fulfiling and rewarding than the shame, guilt, and indignity religion puts on people. The good life can be had and be very fulfilling without feeling bad about one’s self, belief in a supernatural being, or belief in an afterlife.

I’m not sure they have been portrayed fairly in the media though. In all honesty, they are not the diabolical trio.

As for meeting them, I have not, but I know Bishop Spong has met Dawkins. He spoke very highly of Dawkins and said that Dawkins believes in the same god he does. Now don’t be confused, this is not the Christian God, a supernatural being, or anything like that and to explain it more fully would take up a lot of space in one post and you may still not understand it. 😆

I hope that answers your questions and if you have more, I will be glad to answer them, but beware, my answers will be humanistic, as is a lot of what I have said here is.

I love Dawkins’s and Harris’s books. When I first read “The End of Faith” I had to stop in the middle of the first chapter to tell my husband, “OMG, someone GETS it.” I could not believe that someone had the guts to actually say what I was thinking about so many issues. I don’t agree with everything either of these authors says, but so what? I don’t agree with everything any author says. I have to give them credit for coming out so boldly and stating their beliefs (or lack thereof) so forcefully and honestly.

I think the term “militant” is completely misused regarding these authors because, although they are not beating around the bush in any way, they are only talking and writing. They are not committing or endorsing any acts of violence. They’re not even advocating civil disobedience. They are merely advocating free speech and equal treatment for everyone, regardless of whether they adhere to any faith or not.

Bravo! is my reaction.

I also enjoyed Hemant’s book and Nica Lalli’s “Nothing: Something to Believe In” for their more personal takes. Not everyone is interested in scientific arguments or any type of debate and I think there’s a place for personal narratives that foster discussion and show that we are all human and we all bleed the same color blood and cry the same salty tears when we are hurt by others who don’t respect us. As one person commented above, sometimes emotion is left out of the equation in some of the more academic books, and that cuts off a huge part of the potential audience. Most people like to hear human interest stories and see how other people live and feel and that’s the best way to touch their hearts, usually a required first step before reaching someone’s mind.

I think Hitchens is an entertaining ass, but I haven’t read his book.

I’m afraid the only thing I’ve read along these lines is “The Blind Watchmaker” and it’s a spectacular book for explaining how evolution is understood to work.
It’s not about atheism, but it’s definitely worth reading.

Why wasn’t Hemant Mehta on your list?

I agree with Dawkins and Hitchens that teaching children religion is a form of child abuse. It’s inherently divisive, self-defeating, and takes up space and focus that should be reserved for facts and useful knowledge. Children don’t know how to maturely use that teaching, so they often end up using it as a weapon. The non-religious see this; the religious do not. I personally regret the religion I taught to my children in my ignorance. Luckily for me, it did not prevent them from finding their own way with respect to religion, just as my brainwashing—though it was difficult to overcome—didn’t prevent me from working my way to the light.

Are these authors too tough; too strident? Do we rather need a softer approach? It takes all kinds of approaches to meet all kinds of people. In my view, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris are strong medicine, and they are the urgent treatment of our national illness. What threatens us now is not the moderates and progressives among religions, but the fundamentalists. These authors are a response, perhaps a reaction, to the idiocy that has for too long gone unchallenged. They provide cover for the silent—I hope–majority who have needed a champion, a David to confront our Goliath.

Diana said:

My criticisms of all three [authors] can be extended to most atheists: a tin ear for human emotion. A stone heart, too. They are deaf to the reason why religion is successful: religions give people a replicable means of affiliating with other people. They appeal to the emotions in a way that atheism doesn’t. They bind people together. That is no mean thing.

I doubt that the authors are unaware and unsympathetic to the human needs for community and emotional support. If I had to guess, I would say that, at least for Dawkins and Harris, that their atheism is not the locus of their connectedness and emotional experience. Dawkins is a family man; I don’t know about Harris except that he is studying meditation. These men are not stone-hearted, but may seem cold because they are making rational, evidential arguments, not appeals to emotions. In my view, once the rational matters are put to rest, one may explore the other ways of building community and connectedness to the world and life. Religion is not necessary to be fully human and fully alive.

UnboundSet, you said you think Hitchens is

Our very own Anne Coulter.

That is loose talk, and a slander on anyone. Give the man his due. For me, he’s honest; she’s not. He’s educated; she’s not. He’s no hypocrite; she is. He’s right; she’s wrong. Their only commonality is that they both love to sell books.

Dawkins. I’d love to go into EP but I’ll repeat that any scientist who thinks you can apply probability models to the supernatural claims of religion needs to go back and study just what it is math and science can do. I’ll also point out that he has ridiculed the other side for doing exactly what he did. His claims applying evolutionary concepts (the evolved God nonsense) is even more pseudo-scientific. It has quite literally no basis in logic or science. None. That some atheists who claim to be interested in reason and science cheer when he does this doesn’t do much for their credibility. His signing that petition to outlaw teaching children under the age of 16 about religion (which he recanted in the face of criticism) didn’t surprise me.

No more than that Hitchens, a neo-neo-conman, would do the same. How easily he seems to be forgiven for his lies about Clinton and his promotion of the illegal invasion of Iraq. I’d imagine he might well be calling for war crimes prosecution of Clinton if he had invaded another country like Bush did. I’m pressed for time or I’d try to find out what he said about Clinton’s Kosovo intervention.

Harris, actually I think someone above said it all. Maybe he should finish his degree and show us some science, then we’d know if there’s anything to that. Other than that, he’s just another hate monger.

Dennett, if he’s the best philosopher you’ve ever read you couldn’t have read much. I’d suggest John Dewey or Paul Weiss or any of about a thousand others.

James Randi, now that old fraud is an interesting case. But you haven’t asked about him. I’ll just say that anyone who cares about science and also believes that most of his debunking is valid as science is also not thinking. Just about any experimental science, certainly just about all of psychology including some EP would fall even more easily under the same standards. You do realize the man’s never produced a line of science in his life, don’t you?

it did not prevent them from finding their own way with respect to religion, just as my brainwashing—though it was difficult to overcome—didn’t prevent me from working my way to the light.

Darryl, you do know that this contradicts your claims that religious teaching is harmful, don’t you? Do you also advocate keeping children from watching TV and movies and reading junk and playing video games because I can guarantee you that the large majority of children in the West do a lot more of those than are exposed to religion of any kind.

So, I guess that’s it for that First Amendment stuff, huh?

Darryl, you do know that this contradicts your claims that religious teaching is harmful, don’t you?

Only if you’re a shallow thinker. You have to read my posts very carefully.

Why wasn’t Hemant Mehta on your list?

Good question! I just assumed everyone here had read and liked Hemant’s book. I did. 🙂 So, what did you all think?

Dawkins — Read TGD and Ancestor’s Tale now, and thought they were very good. He’s in my heroes list for sure.

Sam Harris — I’m reading End of Faith, and finding it well written and interesting.

Hitchens — haven’t read him. I did see a copy of the Penn & Teller Mother Teresa episode that he was in: if he’s like that in real life he better get his liver checked regularly. I don’t know about him at all, and the pro-Iraq war stance seems so badly thought through.

There are altogether more admirable atheists out there. I’m just sorry to see people going for these guys instead.

You’ve got to take your food where you find it.

Educated people know the literature and can use metaphors all day long–isn’t that amazing?!

LOL! Yes but do they “feel its presence.” Your putting meaning into his text is starting to remind me of a Christian interpreting the Bible Daryl.

Its always interesting to watch someone come face to face with the clay feet of their idol.

Unbound,

You’re a good sport. I like the “feet of clay” thing; although it dates you. Hitch is not my idol; Miko is.

cheers

I don’t know. In this interview where he stumbles around quite a bit he claims to “know Evil and to have felt its presence.” Sounds like supernatural talk to me. Can you still call yourself an Atheist if you believe in Spirits and Magic?

Sure you can. You can also believe in big foot, UFOs, the lochness monster, esp, ghosts, etc. none of those things depend on god(s).

There are altogether more admirable atheists out there. I’m just sorry to see people going for these guys instead. Paula Poundstone.

She is the one that tells unfunny jokes about her cats right? 🙂

Maybe the Kurtz cult is going off the old fraud.

olvlzl, I still don’t get where you get the idea that there is a Kurtz cult. I really wish for that to stop. The man is recoverying from heart surgery. Give him a little break. 🙁

UnboundSet, I’m probably old enough to be your grandfather and Darryl and I sort of have a dialogue going. If you don’t think I’m going to answer someone who implies I’m a “shallow thinker” you are mistaken.

Mriana, sorry as I am to hear that he’s having health problems that changes nothing about his history or the various groups he’s set into motion. He and his colleagues have had no qualms about going after other people whose only crime is violating their rigid ideology, causing them pain and distress, some of whom were simply doing their jobs as scientists. As to my talking about his cult, it’s kind of ironic given the ease with which atheist fundamentalism identifies cults all over the place. I am finding his name or presence in just about every place I look, it’s not in my power to find the full extent of that presence but it certainly seems to be pervasive.

Mriana, sorry as I am to hear that he’s having health problems that changes nothing about his history or the various groups he’s set into motion.

I don’t know about their rigid ideology, but it sounds to me as though you have an axe to grind. Did you ever take it to the CFI board or something? I don’t know, you just remind me of someone.

Well, until I see differently, I will continue to be a card carrying member of CSH and AHA. I’ve never been treated badly by them yet. Nor have I seen anything wrong with Corliss Lamont- of course, I don’t think he is alive anymore.

Corliss Lamont- of course, I don’t think he is alive anymore.

Quite long gone. You don’t see anything wrong with Corliss? Maybe you haven’t gone through what’s known of his younger days. He was a rather bigoted fanatic.

And I’d never advocate anyone not being a member of any group they’d want to be in.

Izzy,

I hope that’s I. F. Stone, one of my heros.

I never advocated that Dawkins, Harris or even Hitchens not say what they wanted to, just that they not get away with having the last word as some kind of authority unable to make total fools of themselves on occasion. That’s what fundamentalists do to their heros, not free thinkers.

You know I’ve been told that I’m too coldly logical on occasion, maybe I’m balancing it out here.

Olvlzl,
You should explain your opinion of Randi and/or CSICOP on your blog. I’d be interested enough to read it. Here, we only get little scraps of your reasons, and an overall impression that you have an axe to grind.

miller, I’ve written this piece about pseudo-Skepticism which actually has quite a bit of my problem with that phenomenon. I’ve also written a bit more on the topic. Actually it was a rather harmless statement I made about Penn Jillette which led to some rather nasty flames that prompted me to write the piece. I’ve followed up on the topic in other posts. It’s kind of long but the arguments leading up to the conclusions are sufficiently novel that I thought it was a good idea to repeat them several times. I’d write the same piece today, though differently. The comment thread is a pretty good indication of the kind of hate mail I get and of the fact that some people don’t do a very good job of reading what was right in front of their eyes. You will notice a point I had to make to a “Whispers” who claimed that atheists were the target of the piece, the word “atheist” doesn’t appear once in the piece. It was exactly this lie by “Whispers” that was repeated by one of Kurtz boys and which he refuesed to retract. The lying blogger mentioned the comment specifically but neglected to mention my correction of it.

The reason that Dawkins was used as an example in the pice was because he is the most famous current member of CSICOP, not specifically because he’s also the most prominent atheist. Interestingly enough, it was my pointing out that some reviewers of his book had found , as I did, that Dawkins hadn’t done much research for his most recent book. Call me innocent but it’s pretty shocking that a book that badly researched, written by an Oxford professor could win such acclaim. I would have liked to link to the review in Harpers, by far the best review I’ve read of it, but it didn’t really fit the theme of my post.

Izzy,

I read your piece that you cite above, and I picked out this paragraph for comment.

In short, people in their daily lives should be free to believe what they believe without pretentiously positivist people bothering them. That is if they don’t try to force their beliefs on the unwilling. In the end it isn’t the pretended security of our knowledge that will save us from horrible consequences, it’s our tolerance and fairness that will.

You touch upon three subjects in this paragraph the second of which is the central topic of your piece: freedom of belief, positivism and your general negative view of it, and what I assume is human fate or some future state.

Allow me to restate them:

1. People should have freedom of belief and not be harassed by positivists about the content of their beliefs. You qualify the positivism of the harassers, but they are positivists none the less.

2. People should have this harassment-free freedom of belief if, or so long as, they do not attempt to enforce their beliefs on the unwilling.

3. Not certainty about our knowledge will save us (from what you don’t say), but our tolerance and fairness.

The first idea is of course two ideas: 1) People should have freedom of belief and 2) believers should not be harassed by positivists about the content of their beliefs. I assume you accept both ideas. May I assume that you did not mean to limit the obligation to not harass believers for only positivists but for anyone?

Concerning the second idea, did you mean to say that believers may be harassed by positivists (or anyone) if the believers are enforcing their beliefs on the unwilling?

There’s a lot in your piece that I can agree with, but I think its central point about positivism is, so far as I know, a given among philosophers of science, and is actually trivial in light of our present national and global circumstances.

I agree that people are free to believe as they choose, and this freedom of mind should not be denied them.

Except for committed philosophical positivists, which I think are rather rare, positivism is usually a sign of the novice, or someone who is not a professional scientist, or, in general, someone who does not understand the limits of knowledge.

What I think is an unrealistic condition in your argument is “if they don’t try to force their beliefs on the unwilling.” When in human history have the religions that are the particular focus of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and others not tried to enforce their beliefs on the unwilling? We are confronting horrible fundamentalism out of necessity. Freedom of belief and the limits of knowledge have little to do with our present challenge.

I must take issue with your third idea. Certainly an unrealistic certainty about unknowables is a problem that can lead to turmoil and division, but a practical trust in factual knowledge and experience is the only thing that will save us from any future disaster. Under the condition that you named, we ought to be tolerant and fair with all people, regardless of their beliefs, but tolerance and fairness are only extended to those who are tolerant and fair. This is a grand bargain we have struck. Intolerance cannot be tolerated. Injustice cannot be abided. Tolerance of the intolerant, and fairness with the unfair are the ingredients of a disaster, and they will not save us. This is the grave mistake that the English are making.

Just had a question: what is Dawkin’s position on religious moderates/progressives/liberals? I ask b/c in his book, he seems to say that he thinks moderates are part of the problem (if he means that they haven’t spoken up enough, I agree with him. If he thinks they are as bad as extremists just b/c they have beliefs, I must disagree-I’ve met plenty of decent moderates who support separation of church and state and other freedoms). But I’ve constantly seen him talk with moderates-from Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford (and in the interview he is very quick to point out that Harries is nothing like the Ted Haggards of this world), to Alister McGrath, to others. He’s always very polite and decent about it (which is good). I’ve also seen him say in an interview when someone asked him “do you think all religious people are stupid, even the moderate ones?” He said “no, of course not”.

He seems very much to want to engage in peaceful dialogue with them and seems quite happy when they agree with on evolution. He obviously thinks they are worth talking to and dialoging with, and while I’ve noticed him often be puzzled as to why they still believe in God, I’ve never seen him attack any of them for their beliefs or try to make them change their minds. What I’m saying is, his words in his book when he talks about moderates seem much more strident than his actions when he is actually with them. I’ve heard some say that this is because he’s very passionate about what he’s writing about so it comes across as more strident than he actually is. I guess that makes sense to me. I am just wondering what is everyone else’s opinion on this?

I thought that those of you who have read more of his books and seen more of his interviews might be able to provide some insight into this. I’ve only just started reading the God Delusion. I’m an agnostic myself, but I do have several friends who are liberal but religious. We get along. As long as they don’t push their beliefs on me I really don’t care what they believe. Many of them have asked me what Dawkins thinks about people like them and I find myself saying “well, I’m not quite sure”, for the reasons mentioned above.

Also, does he say anything about beliefs such as Wicca/New Age? I noticed he seems to go after the “big 3” more than anything else, but Wicca/New Age people are by no means atheists and do believe in something, some believe in more than one god. Just curious. Any answers would be great, thanks.

That should be

Very little in life, even most of the important questions of politics and law are the product of science but result from the lessons of history…

Karen,

He has exposed numerous scam artists like Peter Popoff, Sylvia Browne, Uri Geller, Ernest Angeley and myriad others who rip off vulnerable people and give religion a black eye.

any of this list who were bilking people of their money is a fair target of debunking, Randi, however, went a lot farther than that. His “debunking” if applied to most empirical science would “debunk” it just as effectively. He’s a magician, like Geller, if he didn’t make fraudulant claims and post fraudulent “challenges” against legitimate scientists I’d never touch the guy. That famous “challenge” of his is a fraud, you now. He’s said that he always has an out. He’s become quite well off apparently, like Geller, you think that some of those folks handing over money aren’t falling for his schtick?

Positivism shouldn’t be a given among scientists because it isn’t an idea that can be validated by the methods of science. It is prevalent in the culture of science, as is scientism, but both of those are not only unsupported by science, the more you consider them the more unlikely they appear.

I challenge your notion that positivism is a given among scientists. I have never had a scientist espouse or defend positivism to me. Most scientists are working not philosophizing.

I think that like other aspects of scientism they are already having a damaging effect on democracy and liberty. I believe they are the reason that large numbers of educated people don’t seem to think that freedom is possible or necessarily a desireable assumption. Democracy can’t exist with an educated class that dismisses its essential precursors.

This idea confounds me. It is not scientism (whatever you think that is) but ignorance (as always) that is the danger to liberty. It is not an over-confidence and over-dependence upon science that is our problem, but a combination of ignorance about what science is, and the mindless application of it.

Who are these large numbers of educated people that dismiss freedom? Where are they? Are they the average people–those that have little or no knowledge of science, who, polls tell us, believe God created the Earth less than 10,000 years ago? They haven’t the foggiest notion about evolutionary psychology, and just the word “evolutionary” puts them on guard. They haven’t got to the table yet–they don’t even know the questions being considered. They’re concerned about paying the electric bill this month, and filling the truck with gas this week. That accounts for at least half of our population.

Maybe these large numbers of educated people are the liberals who voted for John Kerry in 2004, who are royally pissed off at the present administration for undermining our constitutional form of government, ignoring the rule of law, and curtailing the protection of our civil liberties?

Perhaps the people to which you refer are the few, the proud, the intellectuals. Those that dwell mostly on college and university campuses, or in think tanks, or that make their living selling books designed to impress the masses or their ‘base.’ Of those, a good number are prepared to nuke another country in defense of liberty and freedom, so I guess they’re not the ones. Others of them are considered so far out of the mainstream that they are by contrast regularly vilified in the media and used as ratings-boosters. Understanding nothing about these “radicals” and “extremists” and their views, the average people know them with the help of Fox News and dismiss them out of hand. Knowing this, the pandering politicians side with their constituents and rail against these dangerous radicals that are corrupting their children. Education is everywhere being threatened today. Who is endangering liberty and democracy more?

Help me out here: locate these educated people for me. Help me to understand why and how they are such a threat to liberty that your obsession with them is warranted.

I’ve heard Randi say on occasion that he always has an out: he’s right. I also heard him say that if he lost, he would be happy to give away the money, for he would have discovered something wonderful. I’m not exactly sure what’s wrong with that. Even if the challenge is truly rigged, I don’t think there are any evil intentions going on. I am of the opinion that people don’t need to be perfect to be called skeptics.

as a sometimes visitor of Sciencblogs I’d say you should go there to see some of the popular version of those two philosophies.

The operative word there is popular. You cannot get a measure of anything by looking at blogs, for reasons that are well-known.

Your statement about the general ignorance of scientists about philosophy is all too true, starting with the various philosophies of science.

That is not what I said. I have no idea of the levels of ignorance about philosophy among scientists. What I suggested was not their ignorance, but their disinterest. They’ve got better things to do with their time.

You’re making assertions for which you provide no evidence. If you state opinions, then fine, but you’re making statements in the form of facts.

I don’t find you credible on this subject.

Mriana, I. F. Stone, Barbara Ehrenreich, Stephen J. Gould, Richard Lewontin, these aren’t nobodies. They will be read and discussed when Sagan and Roddenberry are trivia items.

OK then why haven’t more people heard of them?

I seriously doubt with so many people seeing Sagan and Roddenberry as heroes, they will be more than JUST trivia. Gene had many awards under his belt as well as being distinguished and decorated in WWII. He maybe in trivia, but I believe he will be a lot more than just trivia. He has influenced so many lives, in a variety of ways, on top of all of that.

I have to say, to be honest… it was a Roddenberry quote that tipped me into atheism.

Sort of a road to Damascus experience?

Mriana, my guess would be that there are a lot more people who have heard of Pat Robertson than have heard of Sagan or Roddenberry. Certainly more who have heard of Mohammed or Jesus or Moses….. The limits of the Kurtz celebrity machine are going to turn out to be quite limited. And that’s even with Sagan’s last wife joining in the effort.

BTW, just FYI for those who care, the “mental child abuse” thing is extremely offensive and I was sad to see that even Hemant seems to agree with it. If that’s your honest opinion then I suppose it’s no use arguing about it – I certainly can’t change your mind. But I will say that if there’s anyone here who values genuine dialogue and cooperation between the religious and non-religious then I’d advise you to stop using this line of argument as soon as possible. There is no way any religious person is going to take it as anything but an insult and a threat.

Mriana, my guess would be that there are a lot more people who have heard of Pat Robertson than have heard of Sagan or Roddenberry. Certainly more who have heard of Mohammed or Jesus or Moses….. The limits of the Kurtz celebrity machine are going to turn out to be quite limited. And that’s even with Sagan’s last wife joining in the effort.

Olvlzl, Robertson is the most vile and hateful man I’ve ever heard of. I personally cannot stand him and it saddens me that he will go down in history. However, I think Sagan and Rodden berry will too. If it had not been for Gene, I don’t know what my life would be like right now. He has been so influencial to people, I can’t see him not going down in history. Not that he’s perfect, he’s not, but he was not afraid to admit it.

BTW, just FYI for those who care, the “mental child abuse” thing is extremely offensive and I was sad to see that even Hemant seems to agree with it.

Mike, I agree, it is extremely offensive, but the thing is, I went through a lot of it at the hands of Christians growing up. I’m sorry if you take offense to it, but it is not directed at any particular (Christian) person, just those Christians who do such things.

But I will say that if there’s anyone here who values genuine dialogue and cooperation between the religious and non-religious then I’d advise you to stop using this line of argument as soon as possible.

Mike, I’m sorry, but I can’t- if it is directed towards me too. If a person asks me about my religious experience, I am not going to lie about the abuses I endured at the hands of Christians. I am not going to lie and say t he Jesus Camp is not abusive- it is abusive. The list of tragedies done by the religious is long. I did not excuse all atheists though. If you note, I ran into one, who was my own father, that was most evil and sinister, because he was physically, emotionally, and sexually abusive.

No, I did not attribute any one vile thing to a particular group of people, but to humans. Humans are the root of everything good and bad, IMHO. I even said there were good Christians, non-theists and atheists.

Surfice it to say though, I have experienced more mental abuse from Christians then atheists and non-theists. I have experienced more compassion from non-theists, atheists, and Humanists. I’m not going to tell you to wake up, but I wish you would and take a good look around.

Mriana,

I’m very sorry for the genuine abuse you have suffered. But that kind of real abuse is not what Dawkins is talking about when he calls it child abuse to simply teach Christian beliefs to one’s kids. In fact, I think Dawkin’s rhetoric should be offensive to those who have suffered actual abuse. To claim that religious instruction is the same as physically, sexually, mentally and emotionally abusing a child is to diminish the experiences of people who have suffered such things.

Case in point, my own parents raised me to believe in the doctrines of Christianity (including 6-day Creationism) but in no way shape or form were they abusive parents. For Dawkins and others here to imply that they were is deeply offensive to me and an insult on the good name of my loving and self-sacrificial parents. I have worked with kids who really have been abused, and there is nothing at all similar about my upbringing and their experiences.

Not to mention that there is an implied threat in calling religious instruction child abuse. If someone is abusing their children you don’t just shrug and ignore it, nor do you simply try to argue them out of it. No, you report them to the authorities, have them arrested, and have the children sent to foster care. Now Dawkins, et al. might say that they’re not advocating going to that extreme, but if they really truly think that religious instruction=child abuse then wouldn’t they have a moral obligation to do exactly that? Wouldn’t they have to push for legislation to have kids removed from Christian homes where religious instruction was taking place?

I’m not at all a fan of Christian fundamentalists who have a persecution complex and think that all the secular atheists are out to get them, take their children away from them and put them in re-education camps – but with this kind of rhetoric coming from people like Dawkins, it’s understandable why they might think their paranoia is justified.

Friendly Atheist, what if a child finds it horrifying to be taught that her friend rots in the ground and is eaten by worms as she is “returned to her base elements”? What if a child is terrified to be taught that she isn’t anything but a conglomeration of molecules whose every thought is nothing but the results of selfish genes fighting to reproduce themselves?

I read the petition that Dawkins signed, and then recanted, it didn’t mention specific religious beliefs that would, one assumes, be told to children under pain of criminal prosecution.

Yes, I agree with you Mike, but back in the 70s everyone turned their backs. I know this because my childhood friends, some from Christiand homes, said that their parents felt something was very wrong in my home and would not let them come to visit unless their parents were there. I literally yelled at one and said, “Your parents KNEW and did nothing to help me?” It wasn’t my friends’ fault though, they were children themselves, but it is still maddening.

I also understand that you feel what Dawkins says is not true child abuse. I see your point, but sometimes it is taken to extreme by not allowing the child to think for themselves. Freethought is important too. My internal unvoiced thoughts was the one thing adults could not take away from me.

I also see Hemant being very right in what he is saying too. The case in point he made:

At the same time, when kids are taught everyone else they know who’s not the same type of Christian they are are going to hell, that can be traumatizing. Dawkins brings up the story of the woman who was molested by her piest as a child, but the trauma from that was nothing compared to the torment she grew up with being taught her best friend was eternally doomed.

This too is emotionally traumatizing. Instilling fear and guilt is abusive, even Bishop Spong has agreed about that one and Christians, at least many of the ones I know (not all), are notorious for such things.

Religious instruction like the Jesus Camp IS abuse, IMHO.

However, it could be scary for a child to imagine being eaten by worms upon death too, BUT at the same time, those who live on farms or out in the country see it often with animals. Death is a common thing to see when one lives in the country. To lie to them and say it only happens to animals sounds educationally neglectful, but not necessarily abuse.

I think we need to be really careful about throwing the word “abuse” around so casually. There are many, many views that I disagree with, both among religious and non-religious people, but just because I think a belief is wrong, even repellent, does not mean it should be labeled “abusive”. Creationism may be wrong, but it’s not abusive. Even a belief in Hell may be offensive, but it’s not abusive. Real abuse is a very serious thing, and should not be trivialized by saying that religious beliefs we happen to disagree with are abusive.

The thing is, we all hold many beliefs that others would consider false, and we’ve all grown up being told things that we believed at the time that we’ve later rejected. If we start saying that merely holding and teaching these false opinions and beliefs (whether religious or non-religious) is abusive then we are on the edge of a very slippery slope. Who gets to decide whose sets of beliefs are false and therefore abusive? This seems very dangerous to me. I value living in a pluralistic society where we have freedom of thought and speech too much to say that we should have anything like “thought police” telling us what kinds of beliefs are acceptable and what we’re allowed to teach our children. Do you want fundamentalists telling you that you are abusing your children by teaching them that there isn’t a God and threatening to take them away? If not, then don’t threaten them with the same thing.

In my opinion (and to answer Miko’s examples), ideas themselves are not abusive, it’s what is done with them. If ideas are used to physically or emotionally harm a child, then yes, that’s abuse. But as olvlzl points out, this can be done with just about any set of beliefs, not just religious ones. There are many truths in the world that would be emotionally disturbing to a child (this is why the nightly news tends to be on after kids go to bed), but it just depends on how the parents present them. For example, if parents use their belief in hell in the manner that Miko describes in his “Case II” then that is possibly bordering on abuse. But you know what? My parents taught me about hell too, and they also taught me that because of this I should love my non-Christian friends and tell them about Jesus. I don’t consider that abusive.

Again, in most cases (there will always be exceptions), it’s not the beliefs but the behavior that should be labeled abusive. Otherwise we are in grave danger of undermining such essential values as freedom of speech and freedom of thought. To paraphrase Voltaire, “I may I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it… and your right to teach it to your children.”

Who gets to decide whose sets of beliefs are false and therefore abusive This seems very dangerous to me. I value living in a pluralistic society where we have freedom of thought and speech too much to say that we should have anything like “thought police” telling us what kinds of beliefs are acceptable and what we’re allowed to teach our children.

It’s not merely the fact that the belief is false that makes it abusive. Teaching creationism in itself doesn’t need to be abusive, but it could be. Now that there are colleges that cater to “Christian homeschoolers,” it’s possible that someone could reach 22, say, without even really knowing about the alternative ideas. That doesn’t seem very pluralistic to me. Children don’t have any say in who their parents are, so it seems rather unfair that their path in life be so completely shaped by the beliefs of their parents. Despite a few examples like Hell, Dawkins main gripe with the religious teachings are that they are teaching a child that he/she is a Christian, a Muslim, etc. just because of what their parents are. His standard analogy is to politics: you may be willing to teach your child to be a Christian, but would you do the same thing with a political party? (He seems to think that most people won’t. Perhaps not in Britian, but I’m less sure of that in the U.S.)

To take what I see as an extreme example, it’s customary in some Buddhist countries that the second-born son become a monk. I think that that’s wrong and I would hope that you do too. How cruel and arbitrary to determine the future course of a child’s entire life solely by their position in the birth order. As a being independent from his/her parents, doesn’t the child have a right to make choices on his/her own?

I agree with you completely about the importance of pluralism. The abusive element isn’t so much what children are being taught as what they are not being taught. It’s accepted that malnourishing a child’s body is a crime. I would suggest only that the same apply to some extent to the child’s mind. Parents are asserting the right to only teach their children one side of an issue and I see that as a grave disservice to the child. It doesn’t even really matter which side of the issue is being taught. Telling a young child that he/she’s an atheist because his/her parents are is just as bad as telling that child that he/she’s a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist, or a Pastafarian because his/her parents are.

But you know what? My parents taught me about hell too, and they also taught me that because of this I should love my non-Christian friends and tell them about Jesus. I don’t consider that abusive.

And I don’t know enough about your circumstances to say whether I do or don’t. (Telling you that non-Christians go to hell and as such you should be Christian and pity those that aren’t could be borderline; depends exactly how it went.) The point isn’t that all children are being abused in this way, but that some are. As you said, abuse is a moral issue. The fact that not all children are abused by priests doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do anything about priest abuse. If it’s happening at all, we have an obligation to deal with it.

Those people who live in Pasadena, California have some of the worst smog in the country. On a bad day (and there are lots of them) you can barely see the hills against which the city rests. For these people, it is normal to live with this kind of air–they are used to it. For people like me that did not grow up in a place like Pasadena, when I first saw it I was shocked. I thought to myself, how can anyone bear to live in this. I could barely breath that air. It hurt my lungs.

Our planet is Pasadena. The air we all breath has been tainted with the pollution of religion, and it has hurt us all. We are used to it; it is normal for us, but that doesn’t mean that it hasn’t taken its toll on us; and that doesn’t mean that we cannot imagine a life without that kind of pollution. Who would say that the people of Pasadena are not abusing themselves and their children by breathing that air? The health stats tell the truth.

probably haven’t read enough of Dawkins to comment, but i will anyway…and herein lies the danger. if you were to ask Dawkins of his stance on the religion as child-abuse thing, i’m sure he could explain it in logical, reasonable terms, citing examples. as a layman, there is no guarantee that i would understand his basis, and simply parrot this term as a ‘proof’ why religion is bad. it’s become another tag-line, and yes Mike C., i can see why it would be offensive.

i think there’s a huge difference between child abuse, and a potentially abusive situation for a child. i worry about council estate kids, but just because they are at higher risk of abuse and becoming tomorrows criminal, does not mean they will be. and you can’t remove kids/sterilize the parents just in case. that would be abusive.

i realise the case is often worse in america, but in england, most faith raised kids are open to different ideas, don’t preach to people, don’t believe they belong to an exclusive ‘better’ group or run the risk of a stunted intellectual growth because of their parents belief. i’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but frankly most people here are stupid and/or fucked up for entirely different reasons than faith.

i think an overtly religious upbringing (and nothing but) could be condusive to child abuse, and such cases need looking into, you can’t pretend it never happens. however, as nearly every parent does something that could fit the child abuse criteria of modern times (letting them out on their own, keeping them in to protect them, not feeding them the right food etc), i find it a highly misleading charge to level at anyone but the extremists.

I agree with you completely about the importance of pluralism. The abusive element isn’t so much what children are being taught as what they are not being taught. It’s accepted that malnourishing a child’s body is a crime. I would suggest only that the same apply to some extent to the child’s mind. Parents are asserting the right to only teach their children one side of an issue and I see that as a grave disservice to the child.

I agree that exposing kids to many different viewpoints is a good thing and a healthy way to raise a child. However, failing to do so IS NOT child abuse. I’m sorry, it’s just not. I’ve seen child abuse, and raising a kid to follow the beliefs of their parents is not it. To equate the two just seems absurd to me.

Besides we weren’t talking about whether it’s abusive to not expose your kid to other views, we were talking about whether it’s abusive to instruct your kids in your own religious beliefs, period.

Full disclosure: I have a 2 year old daughter and I fully intend to tell her about God and teach her to love Jesus and to follow his way of love and compassion in this world. Is that abusive? Truthfully. Do you think I’m abusing my child by doing that? Dawkins would say yes. What do you say?

Frankly this whole thing seems like the atheist equivalent of telling people that they’re going to hell. You know how you guys feel when an evangelical Christian is all nice to you, but you know that inside they think you’re going to hell and they’re just trying to convert you? That’s exactly how this comes across to me. You guys can act all “friendly” and talk about valuing atheist-Christian dialogue, but really, inside, you think we’re all just a bunch of child abusers.

At least Darryl has the balls to just be completely honest about it. All us “faith-heads” are just pollution to your environment, brainwashing kids with our lies. That’s the one thing that’s refreshing about fundamentalists of whichever variety – whether it’s “You’re going to Hell!” or “You’re a child abuser!” at least you know right away what they think of you.

Hemant,

I’m fine with saying that such things are “wrong”. I agree with you about that. I think it’s wrong too. “Wrong” means we can have a conversation and you can try to convince me why it’s wrong. Calling it “abuse” is different. “Abuse” doesn’t let you have a conversation. “Abuse” means you have to call the cops.

Thanks for clarifying.

I want to point out, I get the impression of inclusiveness with some posts. That’s why I keep point out that I do not feel that way regardless if the same person keeps saying, “I didn’t mean you.” It is the tone and the wording that gives me the impression of all inclusiveness. This is troublesome, because I know I am not the only one sensing this from the wording and I am not the only one who does not mean everyone either when views are expressed.

I agree that exposing kids to many different viewpoints is a good thing and a healthy way to raise a child. However, failing to do so IS NOT child abuse. I’m sorry, it’s just not.

My dictionary defines abuse (as a verb) as “to use so as to injure or damage: maltreat.” Perhaps the word often has a stronger connotation in practice, but if we’re going by what it’s defined to mean, I think that there’s a fair case for it.

Besides we weren’t talking about whether it’s abusive to not expose your kid to other views, we were talking about whether it’s abusive to instruct your kids in your own religious beliefs, period.

To extend Hemant’s example of teaching gay-bashing–even if you don’t think that is abuse in general–what if the child happens to be gay? I can think of quite a few circumstances in which teaching a child to believe certain things could be classified as abuse.

But are you sure we weren’t talking about this? I’m not sure what Dawkins thinks privately, but his public comments on the matter are a step closer to mine than to what you seem to think they are.

Full disclosure: I have a 2 year old daughter and I fully intend to tell her about God and teach her to love Jesus and to follow his way of love and compassion in this world. Is that abusive? Truthfully. Do you think I’m abusing my child by doing that? Dawkins would say yes. What do you say?

I’m not sure what Dawkins would say, but I would say probably no, mainly on the grounds that you seem to be a good person. But since telling her those things has nothing really to do with what I’m calling abuse here, I couldn’t say definitively. What happens if she doesn’t see things your way?

You guys can act all “friendly” and talk about valuing atheist-Christian dialogue, but really, inside, you think we’re all just a bunch of child abusers.

My definition has nothing to do with any particular set of beliefs and hence nothing to do with any particular religion or nonreligion. Since I’m applying exactly the same standard to atheists, it’s kind of hard to argue that I’m picking on Christians. It has nothing to do with any religion (except possibly Scientology): it has to do with individuals.

Now, how about the Islamic people who have become suicide bombers? Is the fact that almost all of them went to Hamas schools a coincidence or proof that there are ideas that are downright wrong to teach your children (whether you want to label that as abuse or not)? There were 246 documented children deaths during the First Intifada, many of them combatants. 241 of them were on the Palestinian side. Was the fact that their parents taught them to hate Jews abuse?

As I’ve said, I seriously doubt that you’re planning on doing anything with your daughter that I’d consider abusive. The question, then, is do you want to provide cover for those that are? I realize that I have a much stronger view of children’s rights than the average person, but I can’t agree that we should all be free to tell our children whatever we choose, no matter what the consequences. Fred Phelps’ family provides a good example of the sort of the nonlethal harm that can result. And of course no discussion of the issue could be complete without mentioning rebirthing (the wiki article doesn’t do it justice: here’s another if you have a strong stomach).

So, no, Mike. You seem like a good person and I like you. I don’t think you’re going to mental abuse your child by your teachings. But I think the reason for that has to with what you’re choosing to teach her: I forthrightly admit that there are things you could try to teach her or that you could try to withhold from her that I would consider to be mentally abusive.

And while child-raising can be a touchy subject, we are all (for the most part) friendly here. If I were really harbouring such thoughts about you, I would just ignore your comments entirely.

With agape,
Miko

Mike C – say, for arguments sake, you + your wife had to leave your daughter for a week. say further that you entrusted her care whilst you were absent to a fundamentalist friend. say you came home to find her terrified, scared and upset by constant threats of eternal damnation, of a god that hated most, including her, of people that told her her friends and family were evil and doomed. imagine someone hurting her like that. this would be a form of child abuse, and to use your terms, this is where you would pick up the phone and call the cops + social services. should it matter if it is their child rather than your own?

to clarify,

Full disclosure: I have a 2 year old daughter and I fully intend to tell her about God and teach her to love Jesus and to follow his way of love and compassion in this world. Is that abusive?

no, in my, honest, opinion it is not.

no, my opinion is not shared across the board, but i am as responsible for others views as they are for mine; i.e. not.

i also feel that even if you did not teach your child about any other other religious/non-religious viewpoint, you would not damn, or threaten her with god, for asking. i further believe that you would not deny teaching her basic human skills such as respect, compassion and reason in order to subjugate her to your will. some people do this to their children. and call it love.

i found it interesting to compare my views on this to that of abused wives. some abused wives are never physically touched, they lose themselves, their opinions and free wills to a man who will dominate, threaten and control her. it can take years to recover, if ever. if you now put a child in the place of the woman – still never physically touched – the situation becomes even more scary.

btw, if you didn’t get it, i appreciate you being here, and mean no offense to you.

even with children they have authority to discuss such things with.
Who gives them this authority? Who has this authority?

Their parents or guardians and such persons as who the parents or guardians allow to say such things to their children. Who do you think should have it? As children get older they can start deciding these things for themselves.

Not necessarily. It might be possible to observe interactions between the two. It might be possible to explain the brain at the quantum level to show that it has no external component.

It isn’t as of yet and even if it was, you would be only observing what could be seen physically, there would be no way to directly observe any non-visiable or detectable part of the phenomenon. So you wouldn’t ever be able to know if any theories you developed about what you could observe were complete or even entirely accurate. This would be particularly true since you would have no way to know the nature of the non-observed, non-physical aspects of the thing so you wouldn’t even know what to look for. You can’t do science in the absence of these things, you would be at the level of guessing. In that, your best information would have to be what a person having the expeience could tell you about what they had experienced.

It’s interesting how the claims of materialists working in the fields of behavioral science have talked people out of the simple fact that a person who has an interior experience is the only possible witness to what they experienced. It’s my belief that people used to realize the truth of that better without the mumbo-jumbo of these arrogant philosopher kings.

It isn’t as of yet and even if it was, you would be only observing what could be seen physically, there would be no way to directly observe any non-visiable or detectable part of the phenomenon.

Since the brain has physical components, any non-physical component would have to interact with it in order to affect its behavior. It’s like aether: through attempting to measure quantities related to it, we accidentally proved that it didn’t exist (in any meaningful sense of the word exist).

So you wouldn’t ever be able to know if any theories you developed about what you could observe were complete or even entirely accurate.

It depends on the level of knowledge one has. If I have the source code to a computer program that prints out the string “Hello, world!” and exits, I can carefully go over it line-by-line and conclude that the computer program had no consciousness. Now, we’re getting somewhat close to simulating a mouse brain on a computer. If we succeed in that, we’ll have a complete algorithm that can do everything a mouse can do. If we complete the simulation and end up with something that isn’t a mouse brain, we’ll know that modeling the physical isn’t sufficient. Either way, we’ll get an answer eventually, even if it’s too complicated to be practical in any applications.

It’s interesting how the claims of materialists working in the fields of behavioral science have talked people out of the simple fact that a person who has an interior experience is the only possible witness to what they experienced.

I can’t find the link right now, but there’s a group of researchers that are having excellent results in determing what a person is thinking about from a predetermined list of topics through the use of an EEG. It’s obviously much more difficult to do, but there’s no reason to think that these things are forever out of the reach of physical observation.

and give her total freedom to
make her own choice when she’s ready to.

That’s good and I also hope you don’t do like my mother who is climbing the walls because my older son is “not a Christian”. 🙄 I still have not told her that I’m a Humanist and I’ve tried to keep her from preaching to my older son- the Buddhist. Although, she requested the “path to salvation” be preached at my grandmother’s funeral- in hopes to save a few souls. 🙄 I’m thankful the minister did not have an alter call, but even my mother thought she was going to have one. Mind you, my son agreed to be pallbearer, so she knew he was coming.

The preaching did not stop when we returned to what was now my aunt’s home (was my grandmother’s). My son said I came close to getting into a religious dispute with them at the house. I still managed to keep the peace, even though I came close to loosing it.

Mind you, my son and I were both eager to get the hell out of there and get home as soon as we could. We declined staying and going to church with them Sunday morning- had to get home and feed my cats, which was true. We left with the sunrise after we had a good night’s sleep.

My older son did not like it one bit either (in case you’re wondering, my younger son is in a home- PDD, a form of mild autism which became more difficult for me when he became a teen and bigger than I am).

At least Darryl has the balls to just be completely honest about it. All us “faith-heads” are just pollution to your environment, brainwashing kids with our lies. That’s the one thing that’s refreshing about fundamentalists of whichever variety – whether it’s “You’re going to Hell!” or “You’re a child abuser!” at least you know right away what they think of you.

Mike, I doubt you lack a wide enough vocabulary to accurately describe my position, so I assume you just can’t resist falling backing on the name calling. Unlike the fundamentalists, I see in degrees–in fuzzy logic, and not in 1s and 0s. You discredit yourself by making such wild comparisons. Like Hemant, I would not think to put serious physical child abuse on a par with milder forms of religious indoctrination. But, to extend my metaphor, just as we can live in Pasadena, we can, and have, lived with the various degrees of mental abuse that religion inflicts upon children. Nonetheless, they are abuse. You think your brand of religion is innocuous, that it poses no real threat, just like the air in Pasadena, but consider some of the more obscure groups like the Mormons of Colorado City in Arizona. Such groups not only indoctrinate their children into false beliefs, but condition them into an isolated, us-them vision of the world that distorts reality and stunts their emotional and social progress. How is this not abuse?

I agree 100%

Mike, I doubt you lack a wide enough vocabulary to accurately describe my position, so I assume you just can’t resist falling backing on the name calling.

Darryl, I don’t know what you’re getting so upset about. I didn’t describe your position, I only repeated your own language about religion back to you – “pollution”, “brainwashing”, “lies”. You may not think that your own statements were offensive or at all similar to the kinds of things Christian fundamentalists say about people who disagree with them, but from my perspective that’s exactly how it comes across. I wasn’t “namecalling”, I was just being honest.

But the issue, at least with Dawkins’ quote and with the way others tend to use it (not necessarily you), is not whether some religious beliefs might be used abusively, but whether teaching any religious beliefs at all to children is inherently abusive…. So simply raising someone as a Catholic is worse than sexual molestation? I’m sorry, but that is an extreme statement, and offensive to me as someone who has close friends that have been victims of sexual abuse, and other close friends who have been raised in loving Catholic homes.

Fair enough. I’ll agree that Dawkins went too far there. I’d actually forgotten about that one and was thinking of some milder things he’d said on the subject. That said, I’ve heard horror stories of mental abuse from religous upbringing as well, so I do think that it’s an important issue.

I will completely agree with you that some religious teachings can be harmful and yes, abusive. But that’s not my issue here.

I understand that it hasn’t been in the above, but speaking in general, is it your issue elsewhere? Dawkins may be taking an Orestes A. Brownson approach to it, but that’s no reason not to take on the issue from a George Ripley perspective. (And since that reference is, aside from describing what I’m thinking perfectly, probably too obscure for almost everyone here, I mean that Dawkins is taking the militant abrasive approach and the rest of us should take the appeal-to-better-nature approach.) One frustrating thing from an atheist’s perspective is that so many of our attempts to bring about social justice are shot down because our audience doesn’t want to listen to atheists. I, for one, don’t really like putting things in legalistic terms, but it seems almost necessary sometimes when our other options just aren’t working.

But I would again advise atheists to reserve use of the term “abuse” only for those extreme cases that truly merit it.

Deal. If you’ll agree that the extreme cases do exist, I’ll agree to reserve the term for them.

Mike, I’m not upset, but I am surprised at your disingenuousness. You clearly called me a fundamentalist:

At least Darryl has the balls to just be completely honest about it. All us “faith-heads” are just pollution to your environment, brainwashing kids with our lies. That’s the one thing that’s refreshing about fundamentalists of whichever variety – whether it’s “You’re going to Hell!” or “You’re a child abuser!” at least you know right away what they think of you.

This is a matter where you and I will simply have to disagree, and if my view disturbs you, there it is. I’m not willing to censor myself for your peace of mind. Please try to keep in mind that my statements come from a man that raised his own children, and made his own mistakes, and yet is not too proud or too unfeeling to admit the mistakes, and to be self-critical. Your language clearly expresses your frustration because this is not a theoretical matter (like your theism), but cuts too close to the bone. Not that it will necessarily help you at all, but you might contextualize this matter as just another correlative of our fundamental disagreement: you believe in imaginary beings, and I quit doing that years ago.

But I would again advise atheists to reserve use of the term “abuse” only for those extreme cases that truly merit it.

Deal. If you’ll agree that the extreme cases do exist, I’ll agree to reserve the term for them.

Of course I do. I’ve seen real spiritual abuse and it’s not pretty. I’ve had friends that have had to been rescued out of cults and friends whose stories are very similar to Mriana’s. That’s part of why I don’t like to see Dawkins et al. conflating real abuse with people just teaching their kids things they just don’t happen to agree with. It’s not just the difference between a militant vs. light approach. It’s the problem of labeling two unlike things by the same name and thereby confusing the real issues. Doing that is not going to help any of us solve the real problems – in fact, it’s going to make it harder because that kind of offensive rhetoric will end up driving a wedge between potential allies in the fight.

BTW, for evidence that Christians are aware of and are fighting religious abuse, I’d recommend this book. It does a good job of describing healthy vs. abusive religious settings.

Change “religion” to “secular humanism” and you’d have exactly the kind of thing a fundamentalist Christian might say.

I hate to be the one to say this, Darryl, but Mike has a point. 🙁

If to say that religion is a kind of pollution means I’m a fundamentalist, then I wear the name proudly.

Now, what new name will you have to find in order to slam me next time?

My intention was never to slam you. I was just calling it like I see it. If you have no problem with the label fundamentalist then that that one will suit just fine.

That’s part of why I don’t like to see Dawkins et al. conflating real abuse with people just teaching their kids things they just don’t happen to agree with.

Okay. But we are talking about one word that gets used two or three times in a 416 page book. (Plus he’s English: they speak a whole different language over there. Maybe it has a different connotation there. 😉 )No matter how civil one’s trying to be, it’s not possible to write that many words without saying something offensive, especially when you don’t get reactions until copies are available in bookstores everywhere. Writing for both a religious and a non-religious audience simultaneously just makes things more difficult. I don’t follow Dawkins too closely, so I’m not sure how he’s responded since publication, but in general I have to see fighting things like that as not being worth the effort.

To everyone: If I may be a canary in the mine for a second, this thread is becoming really unpleasant to read. I’m going to count to ten and try to stay in a constructive frame of mind when I come back. Please feel free to join me.

Karen, I don’t care about atheist PR or wise “tactics” in this regard.

Well, I think that’s very unfortunate. Non-religious people, as a small minority, do need to be concerned about tactics and practical strategies for gaining increased acceptance in an overwhelmingly religious society. Those who are absolutists on every single issue, and tactics be damned, do us no favors in terms of achieving that goal.

If the non-religious are going to call loving parents who take their children to Sunday school or baptise them as infants “child abusers,” I’m afraid we will continue to be marginalized for many generations, and our positive messages will not be heard.

If you were a Christian, and I said that spanking your child with a leather strap till their butt is black and blue is abuse would that give you a cause to think that I’m persecuting you for your faith?

As others have pointed out, it’s a matter of degree. Of course there’s a big difference between delivering a severe beating with a strap, and giving a willful child a spank on a well-diapered butt. The law already acknowledges this, and rightfully so.

(Though for the record, I think the whole idea of memes is rather ridiculous and misguided.)

As long as were not talking physical existence, I’ve always found it to be a rather self-evident thing. A meme is reproduced every time any person transfers any idea to any other person. It may be so banal that it’s a rather worthless concept to talk about, but denying the existence of the process is just silly.

This particular quote from him has become an increasingly popular anti-religious sentiment among atheists in my experience.

Oversimplification is indeed the doom of modern civilization. I blame the invention of the soundbite. 🙂

There’s also the issue that we can’t even agree on what behaviors are abusive in the cases that we should be considering. For example, some ideas that I think could be abusive in practice (although not all of them necessarily are in theory) are:

1. Gender inequality, “role of a woman”
2. Blood libel
3. Hamitic argument used against any group (most recently responsible for the Rwandan genocide)
4. Hell as a place of eternal everlasting punishment
5. Original Sin
6. Anti-gay rhetoric
7. “God is a Republican.” “God is a Democrat.” “God is on our side.”
8. Being Amish. This is the most debatable on the list, but the fact that no one who isn’t Amish chooses to become Amish should hint that something fishy is going on.
9. Homeschooling for the purpose of censorship

Among theists, I’m sure that there would be disagreement with some or most of these (although I’d hope that most would agree with 1-3, 6, 7, and 9). Among atheists, I’m sure that there would still be some additions or deletions (for example, I haven’t mentioned YEC on the list; that’s stupid, but it isn’t abusive). I also haven’t mentioned the proposition that God exists, or that Jesus is said to have done some good things, or anything whatsoever about the social message that should be drawn from these ideas; some of these are probably worthwhile ideas even if I think that cloaking them in religious language is silly.

Note also that this is a varied and general list. Actions may fall into a category above without being abusive (some Amish people undoubtably prefer that lifestyle) or may miss the above and still be abusive. Also, each category needs a specific type of solution. I think that 1-7 should be adressed by getting people to see why these things aren’t a good idea and that 9 should be prevented by the state (although demonstrating purpose is a tricky thing). On 8, I don’t even have the slightest idea of what should be done.

So I’ve written about 30 lines on types of situations I think may potentially enter into the abusive. Dawkins summed his view up in under 30 words. A poor choice on his part, but that sadly seems to be the direction the world is moving in.

Words are important, particularly fighting words like “child abuse” and I think we need to be judicious with the terms we throw around. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out that the emotional manipulation commonly employed at Jesus Camp isn’t healthful for children. But extending that accusation to ordinary churchgoing parents is just silly and offensive.

And the larger problem is that the okayness of the latter stops many people from thinking about the former. Dawkins’ book suffers from the fact that it’s half about why god doesn’t exist and half about why religion can be bad. He sometimes seems to conflate the two ideas and suggest that belief in god is the sole reason that religion is bad and that all religion is bad as a result.

Re Miko’s list:

1. Gender inequality, “role of a woman”

We should outlaw Disney movies, old sitcoms, and stick to wooden blocks instead of the aggressively gender-specific marketed toys at ToysRUs if you are serious about this principle.

We should outlaw Disney movies, old sitcoms, and stick to wooden blocks instead of the aggressively gender-specific marketed toys at ToysRUs if you are serious about this principle.

Not necessarily. For one thing, the kid’s movie genre is already doing a reshpae on its own. Shrek’s Fiona isn’t quite the typical fairy tell princess and the whole industry is moving away from the hackneyed end-up-with-the-prince scenario. More importantly, it’s possible to entertain an idea without accepting it and each individual should have a right to make a personl decision. The main problem comes when you insert the words “God wants you to…” in front of it. For example, 1 Timothy 2:15 is commonly interpreted to mean that women achieve salvation solely through having children, leading to some wonderfully enlightened sentiments like:

“Any woman who acts in such a way that she cannot give birth to as many children as she is capable of, makes herself guilty of that many murders.”
— St. Augustine

“Women should remain at home, sit still, keep house and bear and bring up children.”
— Martin Luther

“If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it.”
— Martin Luther

I think it’s not unfair to say that we shouldn’t be reinforcing ideas like these today.

(Though for the record, I think the whole idea of memes is rather ridiculous and misguided.)

As long as were not talking physical existence, I’ve always found it to be a rather self-evident thing. A meme is reproduced every time any person transfers any idea to any other person. It may be so banal that it’s a rather worthless concept to talk about, but denying the existence of the process is just silly.

Listen, my undergraduate degree was in philosophy (i.e. the history of ideas) and my grad degree was in intercultural studies – and since I went to a liberal arts school I also studied sociology, history, etc. My problem with the whole “meme” thing is that it is a gross oversimplification of the intricate complexities of human societies and how ideas and philosophies have been handed down throughout history. It comes across to me as a ham-handed attempt to try and subsume the humanities into the sciences by making a lame biological analogy between “genes” and “memes”. But I’m sorry, ideas are not the same as genes and do not function the same way within human societies or among individuals. It’s just a bad analogy. And as much as scientists would like to encroach on the humanities’ turf, it can’t be done. Human realities will always be far more complex than the hard sciences can handle. You can’t reduce poetry to an equation, or a whole culture to silly things like “memes”.

It comes across to me as a ham-handed attempt to try and subsume the humanities into the sciences by making a lame biological analogy between “genes” and “memes”. But I’m sorry, ideas are not the same as genes and do not function the same way within human societies or among individuals. It’s just a bad analogy.

That’s because you’re thinking of genes as biological entities. Memetics is the study of the flow of information. Genes also involve a flow of information. The connection is the pattern that they share; not a biological analogy. Dawkins’ discussion of the concept of memes goes into great detail how they differ from genes.

And as much as scientists would like to encroach on the humanities’ turf, it can’t be done. Human realities will always be far more complex than the hard sciences can handle. You can’t reduce poetry to an equation, or a whole culture to silly things like “memes”.

That’s completely missing the point of the meme. As I said above, it doesn’t study the information content but the flow of information. The two ideas are completely unrelated.

And that’s just differences within our own culture. Like I said, my grad degree was in intercultural studies, and I have to admit that in many ways I am a cultural relativist when it comes to these kind of issues. There’s a saying in that field “Different is different, not better or worse.” Hemant for instance, thinks that it is abusive not to teach kids the theory of evolution – and yet there are hundreds of cultures who have little to no access to Western science at all. I would like for them to be able to learn about evolution, but I don’t think that they are being abused because their tribal chieftains teach them their own creation myths instead.

It makes no sense to compare facts with myths. If people want to be left to their ignorance, that is their choice, but that is not in any way a moral equivalent with the choice to be enlightened once access is gained to learning. Ignorance is a sin against the mind.

The problem I see has to do with choice. They refuse to let their children receive education beyond the 8th grade level (sometimes having them repeat the 8th grade as necessary to comply with education until age X sort of laws). They engage in practices in violation of child labor laws. They isolate children from the outside world. By the time a child has a chance to get out, the chance is already gone. They may originally have opted for the lifestyle, but the current generations are stuck in a spiral of ignorance and poverty.

Not to mention that their separatism has narrowed the gene pool of certain groups to the point where their children suffer from hideous inherited birth defects. That’s not a very encouraging “sign from the Lord” about the validity of their values and lifestyle.

My other main beef (as long as we’re here ragging on the Amish ;-)) is that the most extreme groups practice “shunning” if a young person decides to leave the community. It’s a kind of “you’re-dead-to-me” idea that forces a Hobbesian choice between the outside world and the only community, family and friends they’ve ever known. That’s not a proper choice, and the Amish can hardly be called “forgiving” if they will never make amends with one who leaves.

monkeymind basically said what I would have. so yeah, ditto that.

What’s the pattern [between memes and genes]?

I don’t have enough time to get into this properly right now, but basically: selection. Genes are naturally selected based on environmental characteristics. Memes are artificially selected based on social characteristics. For example, I can’t analyze whether a sonnet is good or not mathematically, but I could pretty easily write a computer program that would determine whether a particular piece of writing *is* a sonnet or not. Now, there was never a steering committee that created a set of rules for what a sonnet was and published it in their version of the MLA handbook. Rather, you had some poets developing the form organically and other poets trying to figure out what was going on and developing slight variants of the sonnet in the process. Another good example is languages: a family tree of languages looks fairly similar to a family tree of species. The underlying processes are different, but they end up doing sort of the same thing.

Memetics, to me, seems like an attempt to reduce all these complexities to one overly simplistic mechanism… though I confess that I haven’t studied it in depth and I’m only reacting to the way I’ve seen the idea of “memes” used here and on other atheist sites.

It is an attempt to reduce all of the complexities to a simplistic mechanism. That’s what all of science is: an attempt to make complicated stuff simple enough to understand by looking for general trends in your data. But I wouldn’t trust what nonspecialists say about memes on atheist sites any more than I’d trust “What the Bleep Do We Know” for information on quantum mechanics. (To be fair, I’m not a specialist on memes either, but I’ve worked with people who are closer to that, so I have a passing familiarity with them. Personally, I don’t think they’re as useful as some people seem to think they are, but they do a decent job of modeling the availabe data, which is all we can ask of any scientific theory.)

Miko, no one is arguing that the extreme examples of cultural oppression are not injust or that cultural relativism would mean tolerating them. It seems pretty obvious that’s not what we were saying, so I’m not sure who you’re arguing against.

I think monkeymind and I both agree with you. But as you say, it comes in degrees, and oftentimes the things that seem oppressive to you (circumcision, belief in hell, or living without electricity for example) are not viewed as such by the culture you’re critiquing – indeed, they often view your lifestyle and cultural assumptions as oppressive.

And even if you are adamant that the other culture definitely is oppressive, one still needs to be wise about how to go about changing things – in many cases criticism from the outside is not helpful towards actually making a difference. Change has to come from within, and that usually doesn’t happen when a culture feels attacked from without. (Our current situation in Iraq or in Iran being a case in point.)

Bother, I just lost a long philosophical response to Miko’s post by pushing the wrong button. See, I told you technology is evil. 🙂

First of all, on criticizing other cultures from the outside: Obviously making people aware that certain practices shock or disgust people from other cultures can help to change attitudes. Pressure from other countries can be brought to bear to get certain practices like FGM outlawed. (Though outlawing is not the same as ending) I fear, though, that the US has squandered most of its credibility as an advocate for human rights on the world stage.

Mostly though, those messages about how other cultures need to change is handed to them together with a package of development that amazingly enough, winds up benefiting the wealthier society more than the poorer one.

Judging from the outside is even less helpful when you are dealing with people one on one. I have done some cross-cultural harm reduction work with refugees. You really can’t remain on the outside looking in and judging if you want to help the victims. And it all gets messy and heartbreaking and you just do the best you can to decrease the sum total of suffering.

I certainly don’t consider myself “abused” b/c of my religious upbringing, even though I am not very religious now. And I know MANY others who feel the same way. I would ask that before you make a blanket statement about “all religious education being child abuse”, get to know someone like me who doesn’t consider themselves to have been “abused”, to at least get a clearer picture. I realize this is difficult in the bible belt (and I do think much abuse does go on there, and yes I know there IS religious abuse, I’m just saying there are several cases when it is NOT so), but it is possible to find people like me and others in big cities and/or blue states.

Intercultural (and inter-religious/non-religious) understanding is a lot like marriage. You don’t always agree, but you’ve got to learn to handle your disagreements with grace because you have to live together and the other person (ideally) has just as much claim to respect and self-determination as you do.

Metaphors are tricky, but to extend this one, marriage is founded upon a contract between two parties. They agree to live together, to work together, to resolve their disagreements, to respect each other. For those that take the marriage vows seriously they have made a commitment to each other that they intend to fulfill. This is usually not the case with culture clashes. The only agreements that we make with countries whose cultures give us concern, if we make them at all, seem to be economic not social. What agreements or even understandings do we have with Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or the Palestinians, or North Korea, or China, etc.? Nuclear arms agreements, armistices, or non-aggression pacts are not exactly the kind of agreements that produce results of the kind you seem to have in mind. Agreeing not to bomb your neighbors is hardly even the beginnings of a first step toward mutual understanding and respect.

I used to think that attempting to stop FGM would be hypocritical, since we in the U.S. seemingly had no problem with something like male circumcision. After all, aren’t the two basically the same idea, if taken to different degrees? Of course, I’ve since come to realize that instead of making them both correct, this makes them both wrong.

I think there’s a substantial difference between Female Genital Mutilation and infant male circumcision. First, IMC is done to babies before they’re old enough to know or care about the difference, while FGM is done to adults who do know and care and should have a say in the matter. Secondly, FGM severely damages the sex organs, destroying their normal function and making it difficult for women to enjoy sex. Male circumcision does not. Circumcised or uncircumcised, it really makes no difference health wise or function wise.

Many cultures have some kind of body-modification as part of their identity (e.g. tatooing, ear piercing, etc.). It’s a mark of pride and inclusion. As long as the procedures have no serious negative physical effects I see nothing wrong with it.

I think there’s a substantial difference between Female Genital Mutilation and infant male circumcision. First, IMC is done to babies before they’re old enough to know or care about the difference, while FGM is done to adults who do know and care and should have a say in the matter.

I’d say that mutilating someone who’s not old enough to even realize what’s going on would be even worse. And although it’s less common, parents of teens who convert to Judaism have tried to force their children to be circumcised as well, so it’s not exclusively an issue with babies. (In most states, parents can force their children to undergo such procedures against their will up to age 16.)

Secondly, FGM severely damages the sex organs, destroying their normal function and making it difficult for women to enjoy sex. Male circumcision does not.

As I said, there is a difference in degree. And there’s more than one type of FGM, some of which are quite a bit closer to a male circumcision. And there’s debate as to what the exact effects of FGM are. But the underlying principle is the same.

Many cultures have some kind of body-modification as part of their identity (e.g. tatooing, ear piercing, etc.). It’s a mark of pride and inclusion. As long as the procedures have no serious negative physical effects I see nothing wrong with it.

Some are worse than others, but with each you’re causing bleeding, opening the way to infection. With tattooing, allergic reactions can occur as well, not to mention problems cropping up from the use of heavy metals in the ink. I don’t have the numbers, but those practices do lead to deaths, especially in countries that don’t have good methods for sterilization or that lack the knowledge that reusing ‘needles’ between individuals is a bad idea.

There are sometimes bad accidents w. male circumcision but with FGM destroying the normal functioning of the genitals is the purpose.

There’s some evidence that it may be an effect, but it’s definitely not the purpose in most cases. Many tribes view the foreskin of the male as the “female part of the body” and the clitoris or the clitoral hood as the “male part of the body,” and so perform both forms of circumcision for the same purpose of “identifying” a person’s gender.

Some campaigners are pretty cynical about this – even with something horrific as this, somehow the male experience takes over the conversation.

That’s mainly because it’s not always being opposed even by the people who care about the issue. If they made it a gender-neutral issue, such dominance of one or the other in conversation would go away.

BTW, have heard recently that they are recommending male circumcision for health reasons again to stop the spread of AIDS.

Many flaws were identified in that study. For one thing, they stopped the study long before it was originally planned to end and officially stated that they had done so specifically because the circumcised group was “winning” at that particular moment. In fact, they stopped it so soon after the initial circumcisions that some have speculated that the difference in infection rates (if not coincindental from such a short trial) may have been caused by the fact that there’s a period after circumcision in which those males were unable to have sex. In any event, the first complaint is a game stopper. If you end the study early because the side you want to win took the lead briefly, it’s no surprise that your side won. So in the end, that study proves nothing either way. The fact that some people are currently recommending circumcision (although there’s no known medical reason why it should be effective at preventing HIV infection) rather than condom distribution says more about the religious ideology of those recommenders than anything else.

FGM is not the same thing as male circumcision. Like Monkeymind said, it ruins the chance of any woman having sexual pleasure, unlike a man being circumcised. He can still enjoy it after he heals. So you cannot compare the two.

Miko:

It certainly makes for a tidy ethical system if we can put FGM and removal of the foreskin in the same box and put them on the shelf labelled “BAD”.

In the real world, practices like infibulation have such serious life-long health consequences that I don’t think it is helpful to equate the two. When you do that, it minimizes FGM because until relatively recently circumcision was a routine medical procedure here in the US. It also brings into the FGM discussion all kinds of concerns about religious freedom, which don’t belong there because FGM is not mandated by Islam.

In practice, your way o f thinking actually harms the cause of ending FGM. People decide against donating to anti-FGM causes because they had heard the equation of FGM with male circumcision, and they felt that outlawing male circumcision would be anti-Semitic religious persecution, so therefore, they were not going to write a check.

Since an agreement requires all sides to assent, we have no such agreement.

By “agreement” I meant “facing reality”. It doesn’t matter whether all sides assent (or any side really). Different cultures and different religions have to coexist on this planet whether we like it or not. Unless you want to take the jihadist approach, I think we all have no choice but to learn to live with one another.

Unless you want to take the jihadist approach, I think we all have no choice but to learn to live with one another.

There’s a large faction on the other side that’s choosing the jihadist approach.

There’s a large faction on the other side that’s choosing the jihadist approach.

To extend Carter’s analogy then, those would be equivalent of spousal abusers – rather than living together and respecting our differences, they just want to beat other cultures into submission.

And frankly, I don’t think Bush’s policies are much better. It’s still just cultural domination and an Imperialistic neo-colonialism.

They aren’t. The fact that nuts have so much power on both sides is what makes it so scary.

I so totally agree………

Miko:

How can you compare removing the foreskin with removing most of the vulva and sewing the labia minora almost all the way shut? I just do not get it. It has serious consequences for maternal and child health. A circumcised dad is not going to affect labor and delivery but an infibulated woman is twice as likely to die during childbirth. Yes there are health implications with male circumcision but the incidence and severity is so many orders of magnitude lower. BTW, one of your wikipedia articles did not even meet their standards for objectivity, whereas the other article cited studies that have shown that circumcision has either a protective effect or at least no adverse effect on the incidence of HPV, penile cancer, and a bunch of other conditions. The only clear adverse effect shown in the non-flagged article you cited were the risks associated with the procedure itself and epidydimitis. The most that can be said is that protective effects of circumcision may have been exaggerated in some of the studies, and that these protective effects do not outweigh the risks. Compare that to the undisputed adverse effects of FGM here: http://www.path.org/files/FGM-The-Facts.htm

In regards to your argument that equating FGM with circumcision is the only way that change will come – I’m finding it hard to be polite here. It’s so totally bogus. I have worked with Somali refugees in the US and heard the stories from health workers who have assisted at the delivery of infibulated women. I have corresponded with people who are working to stop FGM in Africa. They totally hate when male circumcision enters the discussion, and in my experience it always Westerners who do this. Attitudes are changing with education, with traveling theater troupes and other types of interventions. As I said before, this FGM/MGM bogus argument is a hindrance to fundraising for these efforts that have demonstrated good effects.

Miko, it’s been said before: the perfect can be the enemy of the good. I am not an advocate for circumcision or genital mutilation of any kind and had decided against it if my child had been a boy. But, please read the articles you cite and get an idea of what is happening on the ground with the campaign against FGM before you make these types of arguments.

Some folks choose not to agree with us and instead would like to see us go down in flames. No matter how willing we might be to offer the olive branch, some folks just will not make peace with us.

Sounds like an argument the Bush administration would make.

By contrast, I appreciate Carter’s pragmatic peacemaking approach that he describes later in that same interview with Krista Tippet:

Mr. Carter: You know, [Kim Il Sung] was a leader of North Korea whom I despised because I was in the submarine force when he was creating the death of more than 50,000 of my fellow people in the service. But I saw that he was a key to that policy so I went to talk to him. And we, I went earlier, in 1989, to meet with Mengistu, who was a communist dictator of Ethiopia, and I had talks with him. And Colin Powell and Sam Nunn and I went down to Haiti to talk to General Cedras, who had overthrown an elected leader, Aristide, and so forth. But if we see that at certain person is involved in a way, we try to be courageous enough to go in and talk to that person, try to get them to see the error of their ways. And one of the positive factors in it is that that person, quite often, will respond favorably if someone from the outside world will acknowledge their existence or deal with them in an honest and respectful way. And they’ll change their ways, which Kim Il Sung did, which Cedras did, which Mengistu did. It doesn’t always work.

Ms. Tippett: Right.

Mr. Carter: But if you isolate someone who’s perpetrating crimes against his own people, the likelihood is that in his isolation, he’s going to be even more abusive, to stamp out any vestige of criticism or the crying out in pain.

I second Miko.

I caught the video of the Harris/Hedges debate about Religion, Politics and the End of the World.

Can that be found online someplace, Darryl? I was looking for it at one point and couldn’t find it.

Thanks!

How is it “mental child abuse” to teach your own children that God created the universe in 6 days? Your objection may be less about the 6 days, and more about what can/cannot God do. If you accept the idea that there is an omnipotent God (as the Bible teaches) you should ask yourself, “Could He create a universe and everything in it in 6 days? 3 days? 1 second?”

If, in your opinion, teaching your own children that God created the universe in 6 days is “mental child abuse” I think you probably have to go so far as to say that teaching your children that there is an all-powerful God would probably be “mental child abuse” as well.

Sorry to deviate from the topic at hand, but I couldn’t get around early comment. It seems more than odd to me.