# Respecting Religious Beliefs **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 25, 2009, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367 "2009-02-25T14:56:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/81 "2009-02-26T18:27:53Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > You’re not attempting to back up **ITR champion** ’s claim, are you? He claimed that Dawkins said “that believers in fairies are worse than child molesters.” That’s not at all what Dawkins said. Not even close. Bleh. “Belief in fairies” = “belief in god, the supernatural”. His was flippantly phrased, but not, sadly, all that inaccurate. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/82 "2009-02-26T18:31:03Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > You’re not attempting to back up **ITR champion** ’s claim, are you? He claimed that Dawkins said “that believers in fairies are worse than child molesters.” That’s not at all what Dawkins said. Not even close. You’ve completely misread or misinterpreted ITR Champion’s post. ITR Champions said that NOBODY suggests believers in fairies are as bad as child molestors, whereas Richard Dawkins says those who teach kids about Christianity ARE worse than child molestors. What Dawkins said was either stupid or dishonest. I tend to think stupid, but let’s not rule out dishonest. After all, if he REALLY believes what he’s saying, one must ask, “So Dickie… what do you we propose we DO about those child abusing Christians?” If Dawkins REALLY believed I was molesting my son, I trust he’d DO something about it. Call the police, report me to social workers, try to have the government take my son away, whatever. Well, here we have himn stating in black and white that, by raising my son as a Christian, I’m doing something WORSE than molesting him. If he believes what he wrote, I defy him, “WHATCHA GONNA DO ABOUT IT?” Come on Dickie, I’m here torturing and abusing my child. Are you going to stand there like an impotent old fart, or are you going to take some concrete action to stop me? That you’re not doing ANYTHING to stop miscreants like me suggests that either 1. You’re full of beans and you know it- you’re just tossing red meat to your slobbering fans. 2. Youre too lazy or cowardly to take the actions your public statements demand. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/83 "2009-02-26T18:33:41Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Are you saying that there is no damage from the church telling a girl that her friends not in her club are going to be tortured (or in this case, are being tortured) forever? The way it disturbed her, it seems certain that she believed it. Get yourself out of the mindset of an adult who knows hell is bull and into the mindset of a young girl brought up to believe the priest and who knows no such thing. Again, I believe that “damage”, like “offense”, has an _objective_ element to it; it is not wholly subjective. The notion that “X experience scarred me inside worse than Y, so X **is actually** worse that Y” strikes me as opening the door to all sorts of unfortunate unintended consequences. Such as, in this case, being drawn to the conclusion that otherwise loving, caring parents who bring their kids up in the faith they themselves were born into should be restrained by the state. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/84 "2009-02-26T18:37:40Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > It IS a deeply personal insult if you roll your eyes. It costs you jack-diggly to allow her to say grace. It costs you jack-diggly plus 0.00001 to say nothing while she prays for your soul for 15 seconds. Similarly, it costs her jack-diggly if I roll my eyes, mutter under my breath, or even shout “And all hail the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man too!!” Unless you’re operating under that double standard called “everybody has to respect religion”. > [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > I’m not saying we should always submit to the beliefs and whims of the religiuos. I don’t accede to my father’s requests that I go to his church, and I refuse to go to a gathering which has as its sole purpose prayer; and if I am in the hospital, I am not going to allow him or his minister to put healing hands and olive oil on me or pray in my room. But you can wait another few seconds while she says grace, and if she mentions you by name, you can say in the privacy of your own brain “dear lord, while you’re at it, can you please teleport a naked & horny Natalie Portman/Taye Diggs into my bedroom tonight.” Or, I can leave the room, and let her do her silly stupid degrading ritual on her own. Do your arguments apply as well if she were saying “Everybody has to stop and assume respectful silence for forty seconds while I do the chicken dance”? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/85 "2009-02-26T18:48:03Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > If he believes what he wrote, I defy him, “WHATCHA GONNA DO ABOUT IT?” Well, there is no question about what he’d _like_ to do. He’d like to, basically, outlaw parents bringing up their kids as religious. He says as much at the end of his bit, where he quotes with “strong recommendation” another essay by a fellow named Humphrey: > [@](#): > > ‘What shall we tell the children?’ is a superb polemic on how religions abuse the minds of children, by the distinguished psychologist Nicholas Humphrey. It was originally delivered as a lecture in aid of Amnesty International, and has now been reissued as a chapter of his book, The Mind Made Flesh, just published by Oxford University Press. It is also available on the worldwide web and I strongly recommend it. Humphrey argues that, in the same way as Amnesty works tirelessly to free political prisoners the world over, we should work to free the children of the world from the religions which, with parental approval, damage minds too young to understand what is happening to them. He is right, and the same lesson should inform our discussions of the current pedophile brouhaha. Priestly groping of child bodies is disgusting. But it may be less harmful in the long run than priestly subversion of child minds. Humphrey makes no bones about it: > **[Edge: THE NEW HUMANISTS](https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html)** > [@](#): > > And, since I am so sure of this in general, and since I’d expect most of you to be so too, I shall probably shock you when I say it is the purpose of my lecture today to argue in one particular area just the opposite. To argue, in short, in favour of censorship, against freedom of expression, and to do so moreover in an area of life that has traditionally been regarded as sacrosanct. > > I am talking about moral and religious education. And especially the education a child receives at home, where parents are allowed—even expected—to determine for their children what counts as truth and falsehood, right and wrong. > > Children, I’ll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people’s bad ideas—no matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly, have no god-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children’s knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith. > > In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense. And we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. Not sure what exactly he proposes - that governments educate young children? That all religions be outlawed? Doesn’t strike me as at all practical (or for that matter, desireable). ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/86 "2009-02-26T18:55:21Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Bleh. “Belief in fairies” = “belief in god, the supernatural”. No, that’s not what I’m talking about and I have a feeling you know it. Saying that more damage may be done by being raised Catholic than being physically abused by a priest isn’t even close to saying that believers are worse than child molesters. > [@Malthus](#): > > His was flippantly phrased, but not, sadly, all that inaccurate. Very inaccurate. I’m sure Dawkins, as most people, would agree that child molesters are bad people because they molest children. He’s never said anything even close to claiming that believers are bad people because they believe, or even because they pass those beliefs on to their children. I was both physically abused as a child and raised with religion. I believe more damage was done to me by my parents bringing me up with beliefs that scared the Hell out of me and have an effect on me today, but I don’t believe for a second that they are worse than child molesters. They did their best to raise me right and tried to do the right thing. > [@astorian](#): > > You’ve completely misread or misinterpreted ITR Champion’s post. > > ITR Champions said that NOBODY suggests believers in fairies are as bad as child molestors, whereas Richard Dawkins says those who teach kids about Christianity ARE worse than child molestors. No, you’ve completely misread or misinterpreted Dawkins. He said no such thing. He said that he suspects that the physical abuse of children by priests may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of bringing them up Catholic. This is much different than claiming that a believer is worse than a child molester. Hell, Dawkins didn’t even bring up sexual molestation, but physical abuse. You are falsely accusing Dawkins of saying something which he didn’t. This is what **ITR Champion** said: _Has anyone ever siad that believers in fairies are worse than child molesters, as Richard Dawkins said of Christians?_ Not even close. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/87 "2009-02-26T19:10:35Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > No, that’s not what I’m talking about and I have a feeling you know it. Saying that more damage may be done by being raised Catholic than being physically abused by a priest isn’t even close to saying that believers are worse than child molesters. > > Very inaccurate. I’m sure Dawkins, as most people, would agree that child molesters are bad people because they molest children. He’s never said anything even close to claiming that believers are bad people because they believe, or even because they pass those beliefs on to their children. > > I was both physically abused as a child and raised with religion. I believe more damage was done to me by my parents bringing me up with beliefs that scared the Hell out of me and have an effect on me today, but I don’t believe for a second that they are worse than child molesters. They did their best to raise me right and tried to do the right thing. > > No, you’ve completely misread or misinterpreted Dawkins. He said no such thing. He said that he suspects that the physical abuse of children by priests may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of bringing them up Catholic. This is much different than claiming that a believer is worse than a child molester. Hell, Dawkins didn’t even bring up sexual molestation, but physical abuse. You are falsely accusing Dawkins of saying something which he didn’t. > > This is what **ITR Champion** said: > > _Has anyone ever siad that believers in fairies are worse than child molesters, as Richard Dawkins said of Christians?_ > > Not even close. First, you are inaccurate when you say “Dawkins didn’t even bring up sexual molestation, but physical abuse”. Read his piece - sexual abuse _is_ the “physical abuse” he’s talking about. Quote: > [@](#): > > She was **sexually abused** by her parish priest in his car… [Emphasis added] Second, you have a point that Dawkins did not actually pronounce moral judgment on religious people as “abusers” - he merely opined on the quality of “abuse” created by religious belief. However, that is obviously not the main point (and I suspect you know it) - it is the _equivalence_ of the two [sexual abuse, being raised Catholic] which is absurd, even as a polemic - and there is no indication he meant it polemically. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/88 "2009-02-26T19:10:37Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > So what if I ask them if, just this once, they don’t go to church? Don’t pray? Or don’t say grace? What if just this once, we followed my beliefs like you expect me to follow yours? What then? Listenign while they say grace is trivial. Asking them to forego church is not. My father is acting jerkishly when he criticizes me and Kimmy for not dressing up to go to church; he is attempting to force his beliefs upon us, in the arrogant presumption that his Pentecostalist customs are mandated by the Lord of Hosts and the foolish assumption that I, in fact, truly believe everything he believes but simply refuses to believe it. But his arrogance and folly\* would not excuse my being rude in return. I cannot control his actions; I cannot force him to behave rightly by my lights; but I CAN control my own, and it is incumbent on me to do so, if only because it makes life easier. > [@](#): > > I’ll tell you what, they look at you like you just ask them if they wouldn’t mind too much if you urinated on their newborn child. Been there, done that, heard the screaming. In my experience, the religious have no problem expecting others to follow their beliefs, just once, but asking them the exactly same boon is unthinkable. Asking you to listen while they say grace is not the equivalent of asking to urinate on a baby. It’s minor. An equivalent situation would be, say, demanding that you baptize your own newborn as they would and haranguing you about it, or doing it against their will. (Well, not really equivalent: urinating on a newborn is hard to equal without going into downright criminal behavior.) > [@](#): > > Religion deserves no more inherent respect than any other idea. It deserves no special protection from examination, nor from ridicule. If someone with whom you have no relationship to protect tries to force his or her religion on you, feel free to respond as vehemently as you can civilly. I horrified a street preacher recently by standing with arms outstretched towards the sun as i dared God to strike me down for my apostasy, but not to murder my wife, stepdaughter, or nieces to punish me. She had pushed one of my buttons; she had initiated the exchange; and, rhetorically, she had walked into it. Also I didn’t care if I ever saw her again. My father has similar beliefs to the street creature I mocked, but I’d not do the same to him, because I value peace in my family. \*In these areas only; he’s a much better man than me in most ways. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/89 "2009-02-26T19:13:30Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Or, I can leave the room, and let her do her silly stupid degrading ritual on her own. How is the ritual “degrading”? If she is thanking God for the bounty he has provided, you can metaphorically roll your eyes and tell yourself she might as well be thinking Santa Claus. Now, if she is making a show of praying for your salvation, of calling you, **begbert2** , out by name, then yes, she is being degrading and insulting and you are justified in leaving the room. > [@](#): > > Do your arguments apply as well if she were saying “Everybody has to stop and assume respectful silence for forty seconds while I do the chicken dance”? Oh, I’d stay and watch the chicken dance. It’d make a good thread. ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/90 "2009-02-26T19:15:18Z")
If it’s that absurd, you should have no problem explaining why it is absurd in your next post, Malthus. You keep saying it’s obviously absurd, but I can’t figure out what would make that obvious unless you think nothing could possibly be as bad as sexual abuse, but you say you do not. So if it’s not that comparing anything to sexual abuse is absurd, what specifically is absurd about the claim that many people may end up more traumatized by religion? ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/91 "2009-02-26T19:19:02Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Now, if she is making a show of praying for your salvation… > [@Skald the Rhymer](#): > > It costs you jack-diggly plus 0.00001 to say nothing\*\* \*while she prays for your soul \*\*\*for 15 seconds. Emphasis mine. So you think it’s okay for her to pray for his “salvation” and for him to know she’s doing that, but he’s only allowed to object if she actually says the specific name of everyone present she’s praying for? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/92 "2009-02-26T19:23:35Z")
I had an experience with this last weekend. I visited my hometown for a family birthday party, at which my 3 extremely Catholic aunts, along with my extremely Catholic mother, were present. After an hour or so of conversation, one of my aunts brings up the “maybe Obama IS the Antichrist”…thing…and my self-control was severely tested. I got in a “there is no Antichrist”, which was countered by “the Bible says”, which I rolled my eyes at since I’d managed to work the gearshift on my mouth in the interim. Then my other aunt started talking about Nostradamus predicting an Antichrist and the end of the world, and my gearshift slipped, emitting “I think my brain is oozing out of my ears here”, which earned me a VERY unpleasant look from my mother. Luckily, the conversation went to other subjects soon after. I did feel bad for even momentarily treating my aunt like a message board poster, but I plead temporary sanity. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/93 "2009-02-26T19:23:47Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Second, you have a point that Dawkins did not actually pronounce moral judgment on religious people as “abusers” - he merely opined on the quality of “abuse” created by religious belief. However, that is obviously not the main point (and I suspect you know it) Huh? The main point of who? Dawkins point was **not** that believers are bad and especially not that they are worse than child molesters and **ITR Champion** ’s point was that Dawkins claimed that believers are worse than child molesters. He made a false accusation and I see no way around this. > [@Malthus](#): > > - it is the _equivalence_ of the two [sexual abuse, being raised Catholic] which is absurd, even as a polemic - and there is no indication he meant it polemically. He didn’t mean say or mean what **ITR Champion** claimed he did. Your opinion on comparing one type abuse to another has little relevance on that fact. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/94 "2009-02-26T19:34:56Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > How is the ritual “degrading”? > > If she is thanking God for the bounty he has provided, you can metaphorically roll your eyes and tell yourself she might as well be thinking Santa Claus. > > Now, if she is making a show of praying for your salvation, of calling you, **begbert2** , out by name, then yes, she is being degrading and insulting and you are justified in leaving the room. I am shamed when my mother abases herself to santa claus. It is embarassing that my mother is a slave to baseless and nonsensical primitive superstitions. And of course she prays that I will be “blessed”, either by name or as a member of the class of her children, or the class of the group “participating” in the group prayer (which by remaining present and silent, I _am_ doing). That’s part and parcel, don’t you know. > [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Oh, I’d stay and watch the chicken dance. It’d make a good thread. Okay. Would it make a good thread if your mother was a wild-eyed ranting holocaust denier? (To propose an example to convey exacly how humorous and pride inducing I find the situation.) ---
**Author:** ![katannah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a5b964/32.png) [@katannah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/katannah)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/95 "2009-02-26T19:48:13Z")
> [@Neverender](#): > > That’s a fair point, and to be honest I think you’re right. > > But what about in our little microcosms, in our friend groups or whatever, if you tease the football fan about his team it’s fine perhaps a little rude, depending on what exactly is said and to who and how they take it, but if you say something about the believers belief it’s somehow less **moral** to make that joke. > I think that is what I’m trying to get at mostly. > Especially in a society (more so in England than America, to be fair) where religion is losing it’s grasp on the majority. Well, maybe it’s just your circle, but in mine, disparaging a footballer’s team is worse than calling his mother a woman of loose morals. 😃 Here’s the thing about religion: a lot of theists are raised with it intrinsically as a part of their lives, from their earliest memories on, and for them religion is a source of comfort, security, and peace. Another population of believers is passionate because since conversion, they feel suffused with a sense of salvation and that their lives are so much better and more complete. So when you attack someone’s religion, you’re doing a lot more than attacking his recreational idols or political philosophies. You’re attacking his foundation/identity. That’s not nearly as lighthearted as making fun of footballers. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/96 "2009-02-26T19:59:59Z")
> [@Ensign\_Edison](#): > > If it’s that absurd, you should have no problem explaining why it is absurd in your next post, Malthus. You keep saying it’s obviously absurd, but I can’t figure out what would make that obvious unless you think nothing could possibly be as bad as sexual abuse, but you say you do not. So if it’s not that comparing anything to sexual abuse is absurd, what specifically is absurd about the claim that many people may end up more traumatized by religion? That isn’t the claim. The claim is: > [@](#): > > Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of bringing them up Catholic in the first place. Leaving aside the coyness of the “I suspect it may” qualifier, the “claim” is the general statement that physical abuse (by which he means physical _sexual_ abuse) by priests does them “less lasting damage” than being brought up Catholic in the first place. That’s quite different from the notion that some people, somewhere, can be found who are so constituted that the experience of being Catholic is so horriffic that being raped wasn’t as terrible in its effects. Indeed, I’m quite sure that many people could be found out there who were horribly tramatized by watching _Old Yeller_ (og knows I was traumatized by that); many of them, if pressed, may well say that being molested by a priest “… as ‘yuchy’” (from the Dawkins anecdote) and nothing near as significant as the pain they felt when Old Yeller was shot ; but it is absurd to conclude that “Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of … [watching _Old Yeller_]”. ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/97 "2009-02-26T20:12:24Z")
Coyness? You’re saying the difference between making a definitive statement and a suggestion based on speculation is merely coyness, and then trying to hammer him for making a definitive statement? I didn’t say “some people somewhere can be found”, I said “many people”, so I’m not sure why you’re trying to put those words in my mouth. What is absurd about merely suggesting the suspicion that many people may find religion damages them for longer than molestation? Please address this specific claim – argument by analogy with some random entity which bears no resemblance to religion or sexual abuse at all is really not making your position clear to me. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/98 "2009-02-26T20:17:26Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > But his arrogance and folly\* would not excuse my being rude in return. I cannot control his actions; I cannot force him to behave rightly by my lights; but I CAN control my own, and it is incumbent on me to do so, if only because it makes life easier. But that’s the double standard. He’s allowed to behave like an ass, solely because of his beliefs. I will say that I have a similar situation in my family, and I totally understand biting your tongue in the name of a quiet dinner. But this is just enabling. The whole thing happens because religion garners respect and protection it hasn’t earned. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/99 "2009-02-26T20:18:25Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > Huh? The main point of who? Dawkins point was **not** that believers are bad and especially not that they are worse than child molesters and **ITR Champion** ’s point was that Dawkins claimed that believers are worse than child molesters. He made a false accusation and I see no way around this. > > He didn’t mean say or mean what **ITR Champion** claimed he did. Your opinion on comparing one type abuse to another has little relevance on that fact. I think you are wrong on that. Calling something “abuse” generally implies a _moral judgment_ on the person doing the “abusing”. Saying that the one - child molesting - is merely _physical_ abuse and the other - being raised religious - is worse _mental_ abuse certainly implies an equivalence between the two. You have a point insofar as Dawkins doesn’t come right out and _say_ that Catholic parents are worse than child molesters. But, if this was a libel case, the obvious _innuendo_ is that they are. From the Dawkins article: > [@](#): > > I am not advocating this course of action. Much as I would like to see the Roman Catholic Church ruined, I hate opportunistically retrospective litigation even more. Lawyers who grow fat by digging dirt on long-forgotten wrongs, and hounding their aged perpetrators, are no friends of mine. All I am doing is calling attention to an anomaly. By all means, let’s kick a nasty institution when it is down, but there are better ways than litigation. **And an obsessive concentration on sexual abuse by priests is in danger of blinding us to all their other forms of child abuse.** [Emphasis added] Pretty obviouly, Dawkins is making the point that there is _no real difference_ between ‘sexual abuse’ and ‘teaching Catholicism’ - in both cases the real damage (absent violent trauma) is mental: > [@](#): > > Second (and this is the point with which I began) the mental abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated threat of violence and terrible pain, if sincerely believed by the child, could easily be more damaging than the physical actuality of sexual abuse. An extreme threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is. And there is no doubt at all that many children sincerely believe it, often continuing right through adulthood and old age until death finally releases them. The reasonable conclusion from the above-bolded sentence is that priests are potentially guilty of abusing children - either through molesting or, worse, through teaching Catholicism. The innuendo is certainly that they are bad, molestors or not. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/100 "2009-02-26T20:29:56Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I’m not talking about what theists do, or do not, get offended by. I’m merely saying that the acts giving rise to offence - no matter who by - have an objective component to them; they are not merely subjective. > > If I call a Black man a “nigger”, not being Black myself and in a context where it is obviously not being used ironically, subversively or among joking friends, I am most likely going to cause offense. Maybe I’m not understanding your use of “subjective” and “objective” here. I’m watching **The Wire** now, and the corner characters use that word all the time - the white and the higher class ones never do. The reaction to the word is going to be a function of how a person subjectively views the intention of the person saying it. That’s as subjective as can be in my book. When people here say “I’m so going to hell” it is a joke. If Pat Robertson said it it might be a cry of despair. > [@](#): > > “Maybe” he was overgeneralizing? Like just a bit? > > Are you also of the opinion that Catholic parents ought to be jailed? After all, that also follows “rationally”. Maybe you can answer the question? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367.md?page=6)