Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
69. I suppose I get to do my debating opponents' work for them.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:21 PM
Mar 2013

So let me throw this out there. Dawkins did indeed say that being raised Catholic is worse than child abuse in a specific case.

Source:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2251963/Being-raised-Catholic-worse-child-abuse-Latest-incendiary-claim-atheist-professor-Richard-Dawkins.html

Aaaaand, I'm gonna put a big target on my back and say that in the particular case he was talking about, HE'S RIGHT!

Why?

Because the doctrines taught to children by the priesthood and others working for the RCC constitute a form of emotional abuse. This abuse has left psychological scars in countless people that last a lifetime.

From the Daily Mail article:

In typically incendiary style, Professor Dawkins said the mental torment inflicted by the religion’s teachings is worse in the long-term than any sexual abuse carried out by priests.

He said he had been told by a woman that while being abused by a priest was a ‘yucky’ experience, being told as a child that a Protestant friend who died would ‘roast in Hell’ was more distressing.


Dawkins addresses what he said in his own article:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2012/12/22/physical-versus-mental-child-abuse

Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place. It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment, and I was surprised that it earned a round of enthusiastic applause from that Irish audience (composed, admittedly, of Dublin intellectuals and presumably not representative of the country at large). But I was reminded of the incident later when I received a letter from an American woman in her forties who had been brought up Roman Catholic. At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent had been led to believe by the then official doctrine of her parents’ church. Her view as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst. She wrote

"Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a 7 year old) as ‘yucky’ while the memory of my friend going to hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest – but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares."


Many Christian teachings (and not just Catholic teachings) are highly emotionally abusive, especially when taught to children. And when children are immersed in such emotional abuse for years of their lives, the results can be devastating.

The whole concept of Hell, as commonly used to scare children into compliance, is fucking despicable. As is the concept of original sin - like I said in other threads, the concept REQUIRES Christians that adhere to it to have no self-esteem. They MUST believe that they are evil, unworthy, deserving of death, and completely irredeemable. The only esteem allowed to them is that which is granted to them by religious figures.

Then in my other thread, there's the teachings of the Good News Clubs (yes, I know, different flavor of Christianity, but in most cases, only a slightly different take from the Catholic version). And they're also extremely psychologically abusive towards the children they teach. Kids are repeatedly taught about Hell, to scare them, taught that they are horrible people, taught that only Jesus can save them, and that they can't do anything good enough by themselves. They're taught that they must absolutely OBEY the orders from religious figures, even if they're orders to commit genocide (Israel vs the Amalekites, 1 Sam 15.) They're taught misogyny and homophobia. Girls are taught that they must submit to males. Homosexuality is to be regarded as disgusting and sinful.

From the other thread, I mentioned Erik Cernyar, the attorney who was onstage with Richard Dawkins. There's a reason why he's fighting hard against the Good News Clubs. He attended a Good News Club when he was a kid, and he was threatened with Hell, and he was taught the "you are evil scum" lessons. He said onstage that later in his life, he attempted suicide because of mental anguish caused by those teachings.

He attempted suicide. Thankfully, he did not succeed.

How can I put it more plainly? The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, and other Christian churches, are emotionally abusive, and cause serious psychological damage to children.

They kill.

I rest my case.
AMEN! He's gone front and center on the world stage! backscatter712 Mar 2013 #1
When I see so-called "rational" people here on DU calling him a coward... cleanhippie Mar 2013 #2
Oh, he is not a coward Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #3
Says the anonymous poster skepticscott Mar 2013 #4
I notice that you have not published your real name Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #7
I noticed that the atheists did not take up my challenge to post their real names Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #35
Maybe it's because skepticscott Mar 2013 #41
In other words, you challenged me to post my real name Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #44
What a stupid fucking post. Zoeisright Mar 2013 #84
Translation: Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #96
Your accusations of bigotry are based on lies skepticscott Mar 2013 #100
Post removed Post removed Mar 2013 #101
Here's the fallacy skepticscott Mar 2013 #102
Post removed Post removed Mar 2013 #104
Project much? cleanhippie Mar 2013 #5
I do not see him as a bigot but as intelligent advocate of atheism. hrmjustin Mar 2013 #6
He is not an "intelligent critic of religion" Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #8
You make fair points. hrmjustin Mar 2013 #9
He does not make fair points at all. cleanhippie Mar 2013 #12
Debate him and tell him where he is wrong. hrmjustin Mar 2013 #13
Debating him is like debating Ken Ham or Ray Comfort. cleanhippie Mar 2013 #14
Have you debated him before. hrmjustin Mar 2013 #15
I've tried. As have others. cleanhippie Mar 2013 #16
I do debate with others. Have I never not been polite to you. hrmjustin Mar 2013 #17
Perhaps I am just being defensive... cleanhippie Mar 2013 #18
Cleanhippie I never wanted to make you an enemy. hrmjustin Mar 2013 #19
I'm not your enemy. cleanhippie Mar 2013 #20
Glad to hear it. hrmjustin Mar 2013 #21
He won't debate me, because he knows that he is supporting ignorant bigotry Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #45
Citation needed... backscatter712 Mar 2013 #49
Please note, he didn't explain why he thinks Dawkins is a bigot. trotsky Mar 2013 #26
I thought that repeatedly quoting Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #50
Except that wasn't a quote from Dawkins...you made it up skepticscott Mar 2013 #57
Link to where Dawkins says those exact words. Go ahead. Do it. trotsky Mar 2013 #58
While your "quote" is not exactly the words of Richard Dawkins it is the essential point he makes Leontius Mar 2013 #61
In other words, you're acknowledging that skepticscott Mar 2013 #64
Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may Leontius Mar 2013 #67
In other words, you're acknowledging that skepticscott Mar 2013 #68
Post removed Post removed Mar 2013 #10
+1 cleanhippie Mar 2013 #11
You're creating a strawman. backscatter712 Mar 2013 #22
Such hatred and intolerance is rooted in ignorance. Were he to actually READ Dawkins... cleanhippie Mar 2013 #23
Reading might not be a problem... rexcat Mar 2013 #31
I have read them Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #46
Then you should be able to cite passages you find "bigoted" or "ignorant." n/t backscatter712 Mar 2013 #47
I'm hearing chirping crickets... n/t backscatter712 Mar 2013 #62
I suppose I get to do my debating opponents' work for them. backscatter712 Mar 2013 #69
You're assurance that you "know" that convinces everyone, I'm sure skepticscott Mar 2013 #70
What makes him a bigot? hrmjustin Mar 2013 #27
Tell me how "raising a child to be Catholic is worse than child abuse" is not a bigoted statement Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #33
You were challenged before skepticscott Mar 2013 #39
Do you have your copy of The God Delusion? Common Sense Party Mar 2013 #53
Nothing on Page 356 shows Dawkins saying skepticscott Mar 2013 #55
I don't need to try again. Common Sense Party Mar 2013 #60
Then they cite the wrong page, and still not the quote that was claimed skepticscott Mar 2013 #65
That was clearly the quote that was claimed. Common Sense Party Mar 2013 #73
Lame...A quote is..duh...a QUOTE skepticscott Mar 2013 #74
Good grief. Common Sense Party Mar 2013 #75
Nice dodge...but more horseshit skepticscott Mar 2013 #76
hah! EvilAL Mar 2013 #40
Still waiting for you to prove skepticscott Mar 2013 #42
Do you not have Google on your computer? Common Sense Party Mar 2013 #54
I didn't make the claim that Dawkins said skepticscott Mar 2013 #56
I see. You have no interest in the truth. Common Sense Party Mar 2013 #59
You have the book...cite me the page..you lied about it once skepticscott Mar 2013 #63
Still waiting skepticscott Mar 2013 #48
Still waiting for you to link to that quote skepticscott Mar 2013 #66
We have to do their work for them. backscatter712 Mar 2013 #71
He certainly made no unequivocal statements of the type skepticscott Mar 2013 #72
True - he was talking about a specific case, not making a broad-brush statement. n/t backscatter712 Mar 2013 #77
I guess when you're preaching to the choir truth doesn't matter regardless of what church you're in Leontius Mar 2013 #90
Wow...you thought all that time skepticscott Mar 2013 #91
If you threaten your child with hell Gore1FL Mar 2013 #80
Explain how emotionally traumatizing a child with threats of hell isn't abusive. backscatter712 Mar 2013 #87
Still waiting for you to prove skepticscott Mar 2013 #88
Still waiting for you to link to that quote skepticscott Mar 2013 #97
He said "is a form of," not "is worse than." And I do support Richard Dawkins. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2013 #98
You won't get an answer skepticscott Mar 2013 #99
Evolutionary scientists can show unequivocally skepticscott Mar 2013 #28
Look up the definition of the word "faith" Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #32
If you could point out where I "lied" skepticscott Mar 2013 #38
Post removed Post removed Mar 2013 #103
Why have faith in a randomly chosen story? Gore1FL Mar 2013 #81
I don't krhines Mar 2013 #78
If by "ignorant bigot" Gore1FL Mar 2013 #79
Seems like all the god-believers can do is.. nonoyes Mar 2013 #24
Your observation seems spot-on. In fact, we can all observe that right in this thread. cleanhippie Mar 2013 #25
There are some, rexcat Mar 2013 #29
There are a lot of atheists who truly hate believers Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #34
That is only an opinion based on no facts... rexcat Mar 2013 #36
Of course, you have no evidence or facts, just like your nonoyes Mar 2013 #37
man oh man is the dude a crashing boor. i tried to watch this, but frankly chewing gum struggle4progress Mar 2013 #30
Well, few can match your unfathomable spiritual depth... Silent3 Mar 2013 #85
Reading Comprehension Strategies struggle4progress Mar 2013 #86
Perhaps the brave Dawkins will offer an explanation as to why when Leontius Mar 2013 #43
Here is the video in full context. Feel foolish yet? Gore1FL Mar 2013 #82
Why should I ? Leontius Mar 2013 #89
You misrepresented his statement in context. I demonstrated you were wrong with the actual video. Gore1FL Mar 2013 #92
There was no change to his statement by any supposed "context" you claim shown by the video Leontius Mar 2013 #93
Did you even look at the video? Gore1FL Mar 2013 #94
nah just parroting a talking point. Phillip McCleod Mar 2013 #95
Hitchens was far more entertaining and humorous. Manifestor_of_Light Mar 2013 #51
I miss his Hitchslaps! n/t backscatter712 Mar 2013 #83
Dawkins has made some smart points and I think debate of religion is really important. napoleon_in_rags Mar 2013 #52
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»For the real cowards, the...»Reply #69