Irish-Salem.com
Email Us My Blog

RICHARD DAWKINS IN DUBLIN - DISCUSSION ON POLITICS.IE

http://www.politics.ie/culture-community/99921-richard-dawkins-dublin-112.html
Richard Dawkins in Dublin
This is a discussion on Richard Dawkins in Dublin within the Culture & Community forums, part of the Topical Discussion category on Politics.ie
Extract September 2009


Kilbarry1

Status: Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 417

 

Dawkins: Catholicism is Worse than Child Abuse


Back in October of 2002, Richard Dawkins wrote an essay for The Dubliner magazine entitled, "The God Shaped Hole". In this essay, Dawkins compares Catholicism to the sexual molestation of children, and argues that Catholicism is worse:

"Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place. I had a letter from a woman in America in her forties, who said that when she was a child of about seven, brought up a Catholic, two things happened to her: one was that she was sexually abused by her parish priest. The second thing was that a great friend of hers at school died, and she had nightmares because she thought her friend was going to hell because she wasn't Catholic. For her there was no question that the greatest child abuse of those two was the abuse of being taught about hell. Being fondled by the priest was negligible in comparison. And I think that's a fairly common experience.

" I can't speak about the really grave sexual abuse that obviously happens sometimes, which actually causes violent physical pain to the altar boy or whoever it is, but I suspect that most of the sexual abuse priests are accused of is comparatively mild - a little bit of fondling perhaps, and a young child might scarcely notice that. The damage, if there is damage, is going to be mental damage anyway, not physical damage. Being taught about hell - being taught that if you sin you will go to everlasting damnation, and really believing that - is going to be a harder piece of child abuse than the comparatively mild sexual abuse."

 

 

Kilbarry1

Status: Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 417

 

Dawkins: Catholicism is Worse Than Child Abuse


Quote:


Originally Posted by Kilbarry1 View Post
Back in October of 2002, Richard Dawkins wrote an essay for The Dubliner magazine entitled, "The God Shaped Hole". In this essay, Dawkins compares Catholicism to the sexual molestation of children, and argues that Catholicism is worse:

"Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place. I had a letter from a woman in America in her forties, who said that when she was a child of about seven, brought up a Catholic, two things happened to her: one was that she was sexually abused by her parish priest. The second thing was that a great friend of hers at school died, and she had nightmares because she thought her friend was going to hell because she wasn't Catholic. For her there was no question that the greatest child abuse of those two was the abuse of being taught about hell. Being fondled by the priest was negligible in comparison. And I think that's a fairly common experience.

" I can't speak about the really grave sexual abuse that obviously happens sometimes, which actually causes violent physical pain to the altar boy or whoever it is, but I suspect that most of the sexual abuse priests are accused of is comparatively mild - a little bit of fondling perhaps, and a young child might scarcely notice that. The damage, if there is damage, is going to be mental damage anyway, not physical damage. Being taught about hell - being taught that if you sin you will go to everlasting damnation, and really believing that - is going to be a harder piece of child abuse than the comparatively mild sexual abuse."

Some time ago I found the attached comment on the Internet re Dawkins allegation. I can't locate the original any more but it is included in an article on the Alliance Support website:

RICHARD DAWKINS WORLD (or "Dawkins and Child Abuse")

"I think it clear that this is raw anti-religious bigotry. We can ignore the letter from "a woman in America" as a) we have no idea whether her account is valid and b) even if valid, it is an anecdote. Since Dawkins is a drum-banger for science, surely he would recognize science would need much more than a vague anecdote to support this contention.

So let's think through on Dawkins? logic. First, where is the science? What scientific evidence does Dawkins offer to support the contention that believing in Hell is a worse form of abuse than being sexually molested? Where is the evidence of this "grievous mental harm" in bringing up the child Catholic? His biased opinion? His emotional approach? An anecdote?!

Secondly, it is ironic that Dawkins has the science backwards. There are plenty of studies to show that sexual molestation of a child can have long term, negative effects. Dismissing it as "a bit of fondling" and being "mental damage anyway" is insulting to the many victims of child molestation. And there are plenty of studies that also show that religious belief and convictions, if held seriously, provide a net positive benefit in terms of psychological and physical health. In other words, contrary to the views of Dawkins, being raised a Catholic is not worse than being sexually abused.

But let's follow through with this example of Dawkins Think. As it stands, it is illegal to sexually molest a child. And, of course, it is not illegal to raise your child as a Catholic. But if it is really more harmful to raise your child as a Catholic than to sexually molest your child, as Dawkins believes, society needs to adjust its laws. According to Dawkins' logic, we should a) either make it illegal to raise your child as a Catholic, as it is worse than pedophilia, or b) legalize pedophilia, since it is not as bad as the legal activity of teaching a child about Hell and Catholicism. Which option would Dawkins choose? It's his logic, thus his choice to clarify.

Consider a simple analogy. The house next to your house goes up for sale. Two families are interested in buy it. The first family is a devout Catholic family. The father is hard working and has broken no laws. But he has taught his kids to believe in Catholic doctrine, including belief in Hell. The second family is not religious. The father is also hard working, but he also sexually molests his kids. In Dawkins World, you hope the child molester moves in next door, as he is not as bad as the Catholic man."

the klingon

Status: Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 364

 

 


Thanks Kilbarry1, the guy sounds like a raving nutter.
It's ironic how the secularist/ atheist brogade pounded the catholic church for it's attitude to paedophilia, but now we see it being embraced as better than Catholicism!

How much will his followers pay him when he comes to visit?

 

tmesis2008

Status: Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,710

 


Kilbarry1,

Dawkins says that in his opinion it is easier for someone to get over "fondling" than Catholic indoctrination. It's very hard to quantify "damage" especially since many of the victims of childhood Catholic indoctrination will not admit that they've been abused. So, it's quite a subjective matter.

What I do find amusing is that this article has you, a proponent of the church, arguing as to whether one abuse the church allows is worse than another. Thanks for that.

As to the illegality of abuse, it's relatively easy to prosecute for physical or sexual abuse compared to mental abuse. Physical and sexual abuse is usually rather obvious.

Mental abuse is not so easy to prove and is far more subjective. If a father passes on his racism to his child that is an abuse, but the father and the child will not think so if they are both racists. Many parents of the previous generation are racists, but there are fewer racists in my generation. Did this happen because we made passing on racism illegal? No. We may have made the racists more hardline, and group together, by making it illegal. We have less racism, and less religiosity now (both good things) and that isn't because pasing on these ideas was illegal, was it?


Last edited by tmesis2008; 4 Weeks Ago at 11:25 AM.

 

aggressivesecularist

Status: Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 7,866

Blog Entries: 1

 

 


Quote:


Originally Posted by the klingon View Post
Thanks Kilbarry1, the guy sounds like a raving nutter.

As presented by Kilbarry1, he certainly does.

Of course, Kilbarry's presentation is not really an accurate reflection of what Dawkins said, nor of the context in which he said it.

Incidentally, I disagree with what Dawkins said here. It was rather blind to the events actually happening in Ireland at the time, it was politically naive (in relation to Irish Church vs. secular politics) and certainly seemed deeply ill-informed about the realities of clerical sexual abuse in Ireland.

Some of the kernel of what he was saying, imo, was that the wave of child abuse allegations against catholic clerics were not half as good a reason to reject the catholic church and catholicism as its official doctrine on such matters as the eternal fate of protestants.

He had (and still has) a point.

Badly measured words, imo, but certainly not nutter material, especially when contrasted with actual Catholic doctrine on a lot of things (all the way from the Holy Trinity, the virgin birth, the destiny of our souls, up to and including the most basic doctrine about precisely why Christ God died on the cross and why it is so important that he allegedly rose from the dead).
__________________
The real enemy of science is not organised religion, but the guerrilla forces of disorganised credulity. -- Andrew Brown, The Darwin Wars
The most efficient (but not the only) exploiter of disorganised credulity is organised religion. -- AgSec on p.ie

www.aggressive-secularist.com

 

tmesis2008

Status: Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,710

 

 


Quote:


Originally Posted by the klingon View Post
Thanks Kilbarry1, the guy sounds like a raving nutter.
It's ironic how the secularist/ atheist brogade pounded the catholic church for it's attitude to paedophilia, but now we see it being embraced as better than Catholicism!

Quote where pedophilia is being embraced by Dawkins. Do so in your next post.

Can you also show me evidence that Dawkins knew of atheist pedophiles and helped them move around the country in order to avoid detection?? If we're going to talk about "raving nutters" perhaps we should talk about bishops who moved pedophile priests around, or is it your serious contention that Dawkins is worse than these bishops because he expressed his opinion?

 

tmesis2008

Status: Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,710

 

 


Quote:


Originally Posted by aggressivesecularist View Post

Badly measured words, imo, but certainly not nutter material,

Agreed.

 

Kilbarry1

Status: Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 417

 

 


Quote:


Originally Posted by tmesis2008 View Post
Kilbarry1,

Dawkins says that in his opinion it is easier for someone to get over "fondling" than Catholic indoctrination. It's very hard to quantify "damage" especially since many of the victims of childhood Catholic indoctrination will not admit that they've been abused. So, it's quite a subjective matter.

What I do find amusing is that this article has you, a proponent of the church, arguing as to whether one abuse the church allows is worse than another. Thanks for that.

As to the illegality of abuse, it's relatively easy to prosecute for physical or sexual abuse compared to mental abuse. Physical and sexual abuse is usually rather obvious.

Mental abuse is not so easy to prove and is far more subjective. If a father passes on his racism to his child that is an abuse, but the father and the child will not think so if they are both racists. Many parents of the previous generation are racists, but there are fewer racists in my generation. Did this happen because we made passing on racism illegal? No. We may have made the racists more hardline, and group together, by making it illegal. We have less racism, and less religiosity now (both good things) and that isn't because pasing on these ideas was illegal, was it?

Would you care to answer the basic question:

"First, where is the science? What scientific evidence does Dawkins offer to support the contention that believing in Hell is a worse form of abuse than being sexually molested? Where is the evidence of this "grievous mental harm" in bringing up the child Catholic? His biased opinion? His emotional approach? An anecdote?!"

To paraphrase your own words many "victims" of childhood Jewish indoctrination will not admit they have been abused either. Anti-clerical hatred is no prettier than the anti-Semitic variety.

I have to go out now but will certainly return to this topic.

 

Kilbarry1

Status: Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 417

 

 


Quote:


Originally Posted by tmesis2008 View Post
Quote where pedophilia is being embraced by Dawkins. Do so in your next post.

Can you also show me evidence that Dawkins knew of atheist pedophiles and helped them move around the country in order to avoid detection?? If we're going to talk about "raving nutters" perhaps we should talk about bishops who moved pedophile priests around, or is it your serious contention that Dawkins is worse than these bishops because he expressed his opinion?

Dawkins says that: "Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place."

Logically therefore the Government should either make paedophilia legal (since it's not as bad as raising your child as a Catholic) or make it illegal to raise your child as a Catholic (because it's worse than paedophilia.). In practice Dawkins may not wish the Government to do either of these things because anti-religious hatred rather than logic is the key to his thinking.