Dunno who Dawkings is but I didn't like this bit here:
"Richard Dawkins is not qualified to make this claim. He was neither abused as a child (to my knowledge), nor was he raised Catholic"
You don't need to be a professional in a field or necessarily have any personal experience to have an opinion on an issue. That logic would lead to things like "Oh you're not a politician so you don't need to know about this bill we're going to pass that's probably going to be detrimental to your income". Seemingly unrelated experiences can also lend clues to individuals about what another may feel or think about something they going through.
Sure the background education or experience helps a lot, but as long you've got a mind that's capable of critical thinking and introspection, that should be more than enough regardless of what conclusion you reach. Similarly, if he had been one or the other, would you have said he isn't qualified to make the claim because he is clearly biased?
Tell the truth, I'd put a lot of religious upbrinings on par with child abuse. Not necessarily what the parents do unto the child, but the long-term negative effects of what the upbrining does.
To use myself as an example, I experienced both growing up: I was abused as a child during my later years, and raised as a devout Catholic during my earlier years. And if I could wave a wand and eliminate any of those periods of time, I wouldn't hesitate to wave away my Catholicism. The negative outcome of my abuse came in many different forms: anti-social behavior, animosity towards my parents, and very inverted mentality that lasted me well into my teens. My Catholicism did me worse. From the time I was very young, I was taught the Catholic definition of "sin". I was taught what it was to sin, and the everlasting consequences (after my death) of sin. Whereas the effects of my abuse lasted a few years after it ceased, my dogmatic Catholic nature plagued me longer still after separation from my evangelical family, and would've lasted longer if I maintained them. I was constantly afraid of the things my religion implied. I was taught that if I didn't devote myself wholly to the Church and it's morals, I was spiritually doomed. Imagine hitting puberty, while convinced that every sexual thought or action you committed could condemn you to an eternity of torture. Or, if you would, imagine all the prejudices instilled in the Catholic mind against gays, atheists, members of other religions and ethical classifications.
Both abuse and extreme religion leave lasting scars upon the minds of people growing up, and if it instilled in the mind of a child, the religion lasts a lifetime whereas abuse lasts only a certain period of time before it diminishes. So, as an ex-Catholic, formerly abused child who's all grown up now, I'd say that if every child growing up in a Catholic family has had to endure what I've had, I'd have to agree with him.
Abuse hurts the child, but a religious mindset that's devoid of compassion or realism hurts both the child and everyone around them. But hey, there's always moderate religion.
Were you raised catholic? If not, then how do you see where Dawkins is coming from? I can think of a few crazy religions that are worse than being catholic. Most protestants like the baptists, for example, and lutherans, are pretty fucked up. The people you hear about walking around mumbling in public and then randomly going up to people to yell at them about the baby jeezus- those nutty people are usually protestant. Richard Dawkins doesn't have much credibility... you are aware of this, I hope.
OprahWinfreyXFeatured By OwnerDec 26, 2012Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I was raised catholic and although it did really suck I wouldn't go as far as to say it was like child abuse. Ireland is fairly catholic state so I would imagine the catholic teachings are a bit more harsh. I have big resentments to religion but unfortunately I don't agree with Dawkins on this one.
Dawkins is just an undereducated loudmouth, actually. He gets many fans just because it's rather popular to be an atheist nowadays (oh, look how smart I am, despite the fact that half of the things I'm saying doesn't make any sense XD) and he writes what people want. He's Justin Bieber of science, actually.
Saying they act one way doesn't mean I'm saying they are that way. The argument they made seemed Pro-Catholic...I didn't say that they were for sure Catholic themselves. If the message got muddled, I apologize.
Richard Dawkins is looking at this the wrong way, and he is unfortunately looking at it from a UK Perspective rather than a US Perspective. The problem is this. Christianity both Catholic and Protestant tends to use physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of women and children as a means to ensure conformity. It's particularly bad when dealing with children. The more religious they are, the more criminal and abusive they become.
The state is failing in that it will not protect it's children from sexual abuse, and even permit immunity from prosecution or lighter sentencing of parents who murder their children. Social services for foster care systems are absolutely abysmal, and children basically enjoy no rights of speech and religious expression. If you are a child, and you disagree with your parents on religious issues, it's like living in a third world country, because in the US, parents effectively own their children.
The problem with Dawkins' argument is that it's blatant hating on the Catholic Church. Yeah some people are effected negatively by their surroundings, but it's not something that is only within the church. It happens everywhere. School, other religions, sport leagues, scouts.
People look at a few cases and think that the organization is responsible. The problem is that people don't hold people accountable for their actions, they always will blame the system.
Oh, so Richard Dawkins takes testimonials now? I guess we can buy into homeopathy then. It has a shitload of testimonials in support. No quality, double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies, but Dawkins seems to feel that rigor isn't particularly necessary, so why bother?
His example isn't that of a typical Catholic. It's of a typical idiot. What kind of twat says that to a kid, one that a priest has molested no less?
Except he follows up that exact same sentence by making the distinction that there's of course a difference between merely being molested and being raped. From what I could make of it he isn't making a value statement on what is worse, he's presenting the case that Christian indoctrination can qualify as mental abuse.
Also, Richard Dawkins was sexually abused (although not raped) as a child.
I'm gonna politely disagree with this guy. While yes, sometimes the images presented in Catholicism are worrisome and scary, there is no way it is as scaring or traumatizing as sexual abuse. Catholicism teaches you a belief, love, and tolerance (for the most part) and sexual abuse violates you and makes you feel of less than a person.
I knew someone from a Catholic family who was suicidal at age five because of what she'd been told in church. She'd been terrified out of her wits by tales of hell and the devil and then told that only children have their place in heaven assured. She wanted to die before she was at risk of hell.
And she was absolutely right. If that's the theology you take seriously it is the logical conclusion.