Teaching a child about hell is a very frightening thing, as survivors of Goldenbridge and other Industrial ‘Schools’ know only too well. They were reminded every day of their lives that they would be threatened with the flames of hell if they were deemed out of order by the nuns. I also think that child sexual abuse is very damaging to children. Scars remain with them for the rest of their lives. In the finality, both threats of hell and child abuse are severely damaging, and have left children from Industrial ‘Schools’ with Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPSD).
Dawkins: Catholicism is Worse than Child Abuse
I got into a discussion with a young person on twitter. Not a follower, thank goodness. I was trying to bring the HELL perspective mostly into the conversation, without saying that it was more evil than child abuse. I think it went on deaf ears. I think it is just a black and white situation with a lot of people who’ve probably never had the threat of hell thrown at them every single day of their young lives in institutional settings. I can only make that summation. I don’t know exactly. I’ve seen the black and white term mentioned in critical thinking manuals. I think they may not be looking at the ‘full breath’ [another critical terminology] of Richard Dawkins meaning of same. I don’t want to diminish sex abuse, as it is not my place to make judgements on others who have been sexually abused, I know noting about at all.
Ophelia Benson gives both the Hell and sexual abuse of children their individual place.
…[H]ere’s the thing. I agree with people who are outraged by the “worse than a child being sexually abused” part, but I agree with Dawkins that the badness of teaching children that hell is real is terrible and that that gets neglected.
I think this means I’ve irritated everyone. So it goes.
I think it’s a big mistake, and especially so for Dawkins and at this stage of the game, to compare it with anything else, and to minimize child sexual abuse. (TGD came out before the Ryan Report. I would guess Dawkins has read the Ryan Report. I think it was front and center at the time of the protests against the pope’s visit. If he has, it seems odd that he’s still arguing that priestly child sexual abuse isn’t always a big deal.
I think OB has a very good point there when she points out that the TGD came out before the Ryan Report. The timing of both was not good at all. They clashed dreadfully with each other. I also do not think that RD would have said what he did to The Dubliner, post the Ryan Report. It would have been out of place. However, I sincerely empathise with his condemnation on the ‘flames of hell’ ideology preached to little children and the untold damage arising from same. The Ryan Report shocked even the politicians. I know for a fact that survivors of child institutional abuse were getting untold grief for years from people who had an agenda with the church. It angered me, and still does to this very day that survivors of child institutional abuse were passed over and neglected by a large contingent in an unnamed ‘community where they thought they would be listened to and welcomed with open arms. However that’s another issue.
OB continues down further…
He may be right that for some children it really isn’t, but it’s a very dubious thing to argue, especially when the church is still trying to brush it under the carpet.) I think he should just separate the two, and then leave the other one strictly alone. Focus on hell, and leave the child abuse issue alone; that’s my advice.
Yeah, that is what I was trying to do at Twitter, just focus on the HELL element. Instead, I found that I was being linked to those who thought that I came from the camp that thought child sexual abuse was of a lesser evil than HELL.
I’ve been standing on metaphorical soap-boxes for years decrying the damage that both child sexual abuse and indoctrination of Roman Catholicism has done to children. I lost out on a loving relationship with relatives who meant the world to me because I sided with the opposition.
Read the rest: In which I annoy everyone all at once
I wasn’t going to mention the name out of politeness. However, now that I’ve been blocked, I see no reason to hold forth to my otherwise polite post demeanour. See following tweet from one Bailey in Ohio, USA.
I never said such a thing, let alone use/scream the ‘disgusting’ word. I never brought Dawkins/Harris names into the equation at all.
Ad hominem: Latin for “to the man.” An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labelling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
Blocking a person can be a form of an attack on a person, instead of trying to understand ‘the breath’ of the argument.
All this critical thinking stuff is rubbing up the wrong way with a lot of people. Am getting into trouble a lot lately.
Bailey says further down:
So Bailey has come to the conclusion that I’m defending the alleged story that child sex abuse is not as bad as hell. The only comparison I made was that both caused CPTSD. Nothing else.
I’ve been blocked at Twitter once already for giving my long-winded opinions on the pinkification of girls. I’m not against pink at all. I love the colour pink and spent part of the summer taking photos of gorgeous pink roses in a pink garden that I was wild about. I was picked up wrongly there. I’ll have to study English much better if I’m to truly understand and relate to my audience. I’m not very good at sussing out the audience at all. Oops, I feel a sense of cognitive dissonance coming on. Beware! Nonetheless, I’m not into blocking people. I don’t like to use ‘power’ in that shoddy way. I’m all for free speech.
Of course I was teasing out the damage that Hell did to children in the past at twitter with Bailey and the psychosocial sequelae. Blimey, I’m now in need of a Bailey’s after my disconcerted manner not to try to offend anybody.
I’ve just looked at the twitter followers of Bailey and it appears that she follows a plethora of followers whose names I’d be most familiar. Makes me sad. Perhaps I should have checked out who I was interacting with before embarking on what would be considered by others a sheer rant.
- Badger3k said…
- Well. it’s nice to see that others can jump to conclusions as well as theists. He did explain it in his Point of Inquiry interview – I’d give it a listen if I were you (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) (since this is news, I assume you haven’t heard it yet). Of course, you could be saying “sigh” because he is giving more fodder for the extremists to quote-mine (and apparently other atheists as well), but then, anything he says will be fodder for the clueless. 6:01 AM
Ah, this what was said by M Francois-Cerrah
Tonight, Dawkins argued that teaching a child about hell is worse than a child being sexually abused,which he said ‘she might feel was yucky’
There was a little clarification on “yucky” in a subsequent tweet:
@the_author_ Can’t make any judgement on what Dawkins/Harris said, as I haven’t read what was allegedly said. Am responding to tweets per se.
Critical Thinking revisited: http://bit.ly/UD03Of
@MarieTherese39 Religion is not a good force in the world, I’m not arguing that. What I am arguing is that what Dawkins/Harris said was sick
@MarieTherese39 But it can be done. You can’t be un-raped, and you can’t un-rape someone. Rape is a crime. Religion isn’t.
@MarieTherese39 And I went to a Catholic school, so I’m very familiar with how religions influence kids-didn’t stop me from leaving religion
@MarieTherese39 Yeah, and once people grow up and move out, they can move away from it. Never said it was always a choice/a good choice.
@the_author_ Good! They are disgusting!
Penelope Grace @callistacat’s profile advocates being “Pro-being nice to my fellow three-dimensional beings.” I’m all for one ‘dimensional’ niceness, especially when it concerns the truth. It would have been so ‘nice’ if you’d actually read the tweets of the person who was blocked before deciding to retweet same.
Also, Dawkins saying raping a child is bad b/c it might “make her feel yucky” is ludicrously demeaning to survivors of abuse.
@canislatrans make some issues much worse but in and of themselves they don’t cause trauma like sexual assault.
Have you any evidence to back up that ‘in and of themselves’ they don’t cause trauma? I beg to differ very much having lived in a religious environment where ‘flames of hell’ threats were constantly thrown at children and caused immense psychological damage. The result being that the slow drip-fed trauma suffered over decades, was told to the Irish commission to inquire into child institutional abuse.
Yes, it does. For some.
@the_author_ Here! Here!