This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Can Religion Justify Bullying Children? by Sean Faircloth

Can Religion Justify Bullying Children? by Sean Faircloth - Comments

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 1 by aquilacane

Are there transcripts for all of these speaker videos? They don't seem to hold my attention.

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:59:00 UTC | #929746

cerad's Avatar Comment 2 by cerad

So some professional lobbyist whining because churches are more successful at getting money from the government then he is. Ho hum.

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 23:01:34 UTC | #929747

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 3 by aquilacane

What is with then? why is that always used incorrectly? Is it a US thing?

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 23:31:33 UTC | #929753

Katy Cordeth's Avatar Comment 4 by Katy Cordeth

I must get my eyes tested. When I read the title of this topic, I thought it said Can Religion Justify Buying Children. I thought this was a story about Kabbalah and Madonna had been up to her old tricks again.

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:30:52 UTC | #929773

RW Millam's Avatar Comment 5 by RW Millam

I don't have time to watch the full video. But (sadly) my response to the title -- Can Religion Justify Bullying Children? -- is a resounding "Yes!"

Religion can be used to justify anything..... and that's one of the many things wrong with religion.

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 02:21:37 UTC | #929787

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 6 by aquilacane

Here's a bully scribble: Tough love

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 04:51:48 UTC | #929798

Achamian's Avatar Comment 7 by Achamian

Comment 3 by aquilacane

What is with then? why is that always used incorrectly? Is it a US thing?

No. It's an idiot thing.

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 07:39:31 UTC | #929806

Fab4John's Avatar Comment 8 by Fab4John

Imagine waking up tomorrow to find President Obama making a speech making the following announcement:

"The government of the United States has abolished all taxes. That's right, all taxes. Well, except for all religious institutions."

Why would THIS be a shocking statement, when the opposite is basically true?

Keep pluggin' away, Sean. We're with you, mate.

Ron

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 07:56:45 UTC | #929810

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 9 by Stafford Gordon

This rhetorical question is guaranteed to elicit a response from me.

I consider the very act of laying religious tripe on children to be one of bullying and intimidation.

For my own part, I still harbour unpleasant memories of instances when I bullied our daughters when they were young, by for instance, shouting at them for being late for school.

I'd spend the rest of the day agonizing over it, and as soon as they got back home I'd hug them and apologize profusely; sometimes I could tell that they'd already forgotten about it, but that didn't make me feel any better; then, and as soon as my wife stepped through the door I'd tell her what I'd done.

I know they can't remember because I've asked them, but I'll never forget what I did, and it was fifteen years ago. Indeed, as I write this I'm becoming a little bit lachrymose.

Adults are perefectly at liberty to believe what ever they like, but they shouldn't visit their neuroses on children.

Hey! I think I might have just stumbled across the bed-rock of religion - neurosis.

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:51:11 UTC | #929817

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 10 by Richard Dawkins

What a devastatingly brilliant speech. Please pass it around, and also recommend Katherine Stewart's chilling book The Good News Club.

Richard

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 11:26:09 UTC | #929841

Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 11 by Peter Grant

http://youtube.com/watch?v=T5U4prBnQss

Can Religion Justify Bullying Children? by Sean Faircloth

Comment 10 by Richard Dawkins

What a devastatingly brilliant speech. Please pass it around, and also recommend Katherine Stewart's chilling book The Good News Club.

Done!

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 11:51:08 UTC | #929844

Layla's Avatar Comment 12 by Layla

I'm glad we've got Sean Faircloth on our side.

He's mild mannered but at the same time he's quite a powerful speaker.

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:27:54 UTC | #929866

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 13 by AtheistEgbert

Is there any depth of evil that religious institutions will not go? The answer is no, there are no limits: Dutch Roman Catholic Church 'castrated at least 10 boys' boys who were (get this) sexually abused by priests.

We ought to understand how religion works. It's not a democratic system based on evidence and free-thinking individuals, but it's a hierarchy based on power and deception. The weakest at the bottom are children.

Of course children are not yet ready to be free-thinking individuals, and so they're the most vulnerable group both in society and in any culture. They're also the ones who grow up and shape religion in the future. They are the primary target for religious programming.

Religious parents believe that religion makes them moral and good, and therefore, they believe that forcing it on their children makes their children moral or good. That means, then, in the minds of fundamentalists, that children are immoral and evil until they 'learn' to be moral and good. This is clearly dangerous thinking primed for corruption and abuse.

BTW, a great speech by Sean Faircloth.

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:14:11 UTC | #929873

Rawhard Dickins's Avatar Comment 14 by Rawhard Dickins

Superb delivery as usual !

Saying "You will burn in hell" often means "We'd like to think you will burn in hell"

It's a form of violence inflicted on the mind, usually the minds of the young and hard of thinking.

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:48:25 UTC | #929875

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 15 by mordacious1

Another brilliant speech by Sean, unfortunately I believe that the people who need to hear these words the most, will never be exposed to them. I wish we had a rational TV network that would promote science and free thought. Yes, the internet exposes young people (those who are allowed to freely browse the internet) to these enlightening ideas, but TV would broaden the viewership.

We need our own Rupert Murdoch to put up his/her megabucks to promote our message. Yes, Richard does a wonderful job, but is he mainly preaching to the choir? I know he reaches several people through books, appearances, videos and this website, but we are not reaching the great unwashed masses out there. How do we accomplish this? Money...and lots of it.

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:20:16 UTC | #929885

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 16 by AtheistEgbert

Comment 15 by mordacious1 :

Another brilliant speech by Sean, unfortunately I believe that the people who need to hear these words the most, will never be exposed to them. I wish we had a rational TV network that would promote science and free thought. Yes, the internet exposes young people (those who are allowed to freely browse the internet) to these enlightening ideas, but TV would broaden the viewership.

We need our own Rupert Murdoch to put up his/her megabucks to promote our message. Yes, Richard does a wonderful job, but is he mainly preaching to the choir? I know he reaches several people through books, appearances, videos and this website, but we are not reaching the great unwashed masses out there. How do we accomplish this? Money...and lots of it.

We need to be very careful about repeating the mistakes of almost any other organized institution, that speaks to the masses, especially when it comes to commercial and advertising pressures.

Professionals and academics clearly want to be paid for their hard work and time, but their contributions are also a philanthropic enterprise.

I think education and information should be a basic freedom. I think a happy compromise could be to allow people to donate money if they wish to free lectures given by academics on various topics, or other free publications. This works well in the open source community, and I hope that free access to brilliant academics and their lectures could prove to be a wonderful revolution in our internet age.

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:59:29 UTC | #929895

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 17 by Stafford Gordon

I don't want to bang on about it, but in my last post I omitted to mention that my shouting was extremely loud and aggressive, the twins were young, and that occasonally I reduced them to tears.

Now, we're very close, and I adore them.

And there I'll drop the subject.

It's back to the fun of science, and the ridicule of religion.

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:00:38 UTC | #929896

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 18 by Stafford Gordon

I think I owe an apology for not having mentioned Sean Faircloth's terrifyingly revealing speech. Such shocking, organized cruelty to children, in the twenty first century is hard to believe.

And the lies! Breathtaking.

I'll see to it that it does the rounds.

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:32:00 UTC | #929901

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 19 by mordacious1

Comment 16 by AtheistEgbert

I think we're already doing a good job of this, but the people that seek out this type of media (eg. people on this site) are not the only ones we need to inform about our alternative viewpoints. I see Mr. Faircloth's efforts as an attempt to spread the word, as it were, to people who don't necessarily seek out this information. An educated and and INFORMED electorate is the basis of a healthy democracy. A large portion of the American electorate are usually neither educated nor informed and are therefor grist for the mill that is Murdoch, Limbaugh, Dobson....Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, GW Bush, Reagan...the list of people who prey on the ignorant is endless.

So how do these people get their information. Do they read and comprehend books on important topics? Newspapers? (some do) Listen and analyze intellectual debate? I think they get most of their information from the TV and currently stations such as FoxNews are getting a substantial portion of TV viewership (and here I'm referring to the general population, not just the under 30 crowd). This is why the GOP is always trying to suppress funding for PBS and NPR, because these media sources are the antithesis of the propaganda of the right wing agenda. And as these sources are in decline (and they are), alternatives must be found to provide information on TV and radio where it will reach a higher percentage of the population.

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 19:30:54 UTC | #929928

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 20 by aquilacane

Here's another religious bully scribble

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 22:41:48 UTC | #929975

potteryshard's Avatar Comment 21 by potteryshard

Religion can only justify bullying children in the minds of people whose eyes are already blinkered by religion. Pragmatically, however, even all of religionists miraculously had a revelation that bullying children was uncivilized, they would still be forced to continue to continue the abuse.

When you have a product that can't be sold to people capable of adult thought (and usually not even to kids without a bit of intimidation) you really have no choice but to continue to bully children.

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 02:47:42 UTC | #930031

Pigzig's Avatar Comment 22 by Pigzig

Can religion justify ripping peoples heads off? Can religion justify torturing innocents?

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 04:44:54 UTC | #930051

The Truth, the light's Avatar Comment 23 by The Truth, the light

Comment 2 by cerad :

So some professional lobbyist whining because churches are more successful at getting money from the government then he is. Ho hum.

You're obviously trolling, but just in case someone takes you seriously, the money issue is just a small part of the problem.

The privilege that is given to religion when it comes to child abuse and death by gross neglect is definitely no trivial matter. It's an absolute travesty of human rights.

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 05:35:43 UTC | #930071

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 24 by Red Dog

Comment 7 by Achamian :

Comment 3 by aquilacane

What is with then? why is that always used incorrectly? Is it a US thing?

No. It's an idiot thing.

I think you are both right. There just happen to be lots of idiots here in the US.

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:06:03 UTC | #930173

MAJORPAIN's Avatar Comment 25 by MAJORPAIN

Comment 3 by aquilacane :

What is with then? why is that always used incorrectly? Is it a US thing?

I've been wondering the same thing. I'm seeing it more and more and no, as far as I know, it is just incorrect usage, not a US thing, at least I didn't get the memo.

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 22:48:53 UTC | #930268

submoron's Avatar Comment 26 by submoron

I stopped listening when I was starting to feel physically ill.

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:14:02 UTC | #930367

Tee-Ree's Avatar Comment 27 by Tee-Ree

Here is another fine example Of a Youth group Kidnapped and shoved into a van at (empty but real) Gunpoint. Bruised and scared...this lesson was to teach what religious persecution in other countries feels like....0_O: link text

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:33:11 UTC | #930786

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 28 by Premiseless

It bullies everyone! It acts like a PD. Personality disordered individuals function through a cognitive mantra, Religion exhibits monster sized ones of these that have supreme power to do what the mantra has become.

Recently in the UK there was a tragic event where an African footballer had heart problems during play.

This was utilised by the manager as a call to prayer! A call to prayer s an only solution to his survival and rehabilitation and de facto mass feeling that any success be due this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of mass support for people and displays of affection, but this was a provocative and deliberate attempt at a subliminal agenda to reinforce religious belief per se.

Widely, it was then commended as if a great work had been done, in the rally for prayer.

Ironically, less publicised has been the brilliant Paxman 5 part series "Empire" which delves into all the very dirty dealings belief has had in securing evils on a scale beyond belief and beyond prayer.

What's the betting this will be less available to fans and their children?

What's the betting the explanations about belief in this contexts will remain "Nut Megged" in the minds of adults and children alike for a long as power can be gained by calls to prayer over emotional hijaks like this recent charade?

It has indeed been a grand display, yet again, about the levels of oppression and repression that most peoples emotion are enslaved to be responsive to and to follow like misled and misinformed sheep.

It saddens me greatly. However politics is rarely worried about such "intelligence" or "education".

Power sees a factory of prayer as its bread and butter to the people. As a famous Nalyd track once described: The times they are una-changing.

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:26:20 UTC | #930897

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 29 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 04:58:56 UTC | #932066