Oh, Thank you, Your Ass-Holiness....

[thesummerqueen]

[reverendjeremiah]

Waitress...can I have the same double face palm that beautiful lady up there ordered?

[thesummerqueen]

Give me half a sec to tie on my apron, sug, and I'll serve it up piping hot with whipped cream and chocolate shavings. This is the single most ridiculous non-Sae thread on this entire forum...although I'm hard pressed to justify that against dqualk.

[everythingafter]

I'm surprised to hear Dawkins describe molestation as 'embarrassing but otherwise harmless.' Maybe if the inappropriate contact is extremely mild... There's a difference between having a priest slap your ass briefly on one occasion, and being brutally raped on an ongoing basis. But if you want to consider molestation in general, I would disagree with Dawkins on that point. I would never consider sexual abuse to be 'harmless.' The physical harm is temporary, but the psychological harm can last a lifetime and can be devastating. Some people never get over it.

I remember seeing the passage in The God Delusion and didn't think much of it because A) Dawkins was talking about his own experience and B) that it wasn't molestation as in rape, but molestation in a milder form ("overstep the bounds of propriety"), to which Dawkins may have thought it an "embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience" for him not necessarily to anyone else. Read in context, it's not terribly shocking.

@ Statler: You exaggerate matters by claiming Dawkins thinks child molestation is "nothing more than an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience." Dawkins didn't say "nothing more than." You did. Anyone who has watched Dawkins interviews, lectures or read the books could not come to the conclusion that he would condone or minimize child molestation or the psychological implications of it. He was speaking for himself here, not anyone else. Had I thought Dawkins was minimizing child molestation in any case but his own, I would stopped listening to the audio book then and there. This is a misreading on your part, and and an attempt to castigate a well known atheist and nothing more.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I'm surprised to hear Dawkins describe molestation as 'embarrassing but otherwise harmless.' Maybe if the inappropriate contact is extremely mild... There's a difference between having a priest slap your ass briefly on one occasion, and being brutally raped on an ongoing basis. But if you want to consider molestation in general, I would disagree with Dawkins on that point. I would never consider sexual abuse to be 'harmless.' The physical harm is temporary, but the psychological harm can last a lifetime and can be devastating. Some people never get over it.

I remember seeing the passage in The God Delusion and didn't think much of it because A) Dawkins was talking about his own experience and B) that it wasn't molestation as in rape, but molestation in a milder form ("overstep the bounds of propriety"), to which Dawkins may have thought it an "embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience" for him not necessarily to anyone else. Read in context, it's not terribly shocking.

@ Statler: You exaggerate matters by claiming Dawkins thinks child molestation is "nothing more than an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience." Dawkins didn't say "nothing more than." You did. Anyone who has watched Dawkins interviews, lectures or read the books could not come to the conclusion that he would condone or minimize child molestation or the psychological implications of it. He was speaking for himself here, not anyone else. Had I thought Dawkins was minimizing child molestation in any case but his own, I would stopped listening to the audio book then and there. This is a misreading on your part, and and an attempt to castigate a well known atheist and nothing more.

---

I disagree. There is no such thing as a "mild" molestation, it's all a felony and for good reason. The fact that Dawkins does minimize it is apparent by his view that it is less harmful to a child than the teaching of religion (which of course is not a felony because it harms the child in no way). It's disgusting that someone would think that the sexual abuse of a child is better for a child than teaching them that they should love their neighbor and do unto others as they want done to themselves. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.

[Autumnlicious]

Ah, the turnip thinks he knows Law! Jolly good!

Such a shame there is such a thing as mitigating circumstances and context. Which is why we don't send off every accused murderer to the gallows immediately and every potential child molester to prison - we have a concept of how far things go. Ergo, there is such a thing as mild molestation - like when someone touches you when you don't want it but doesn't take it past that. Doesn't change the fact it is molestation, but there has to be a difference in punishment between merely touching someone a few times and literally going patty fingers all over them - unless you have no sense of perspective that is.

Too bad it conflicts with your binary world and ideology. Deal with it.

[reverendjeremiah]

I disagree. There is no such thing as a "mild" molestation, it's all a felony and for good reason. The fact that Dawkins does minimize it is apparent by his view that it is less harmful to a child than the teaching of religion (which of course is not a felony because it harms the child in no way). It's disgusting that someone would think that the sexual abuse of a child is better for a child than teaching them that they should love their neighbor and do unto others as they want done to themselves. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.

*sigh* FINE FINE - Lets just say I agree with you. I agree with EVERYTHING you say. You are absolutely right about Dawkins 110% hands down absolutely correct in this situation.

Now what?

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Ah, the turnip thinks he knows Law! Jolly good!

Such a shame there is such a thing as mitigating circumstances and context. Which is why we don't send off every accused murderer to the gallows immediately and every potential child molester to prison - we have a concept of how far things go. Ergo, there is such a thing as mild molestation - like when someone touches you when you don't want it but doesn't take it past that. Doesn't change the fact it is molestation, but there has to be a difference in punishment between merely touching someone a few times and literally going patty fingers all over them - unless you have no sense of perspective that is.

Too bad it conflicts with your binary world and ideology. Deal with it.

---

Sexual abuse and assault falls under different classes of felonies yes, but they are all felonies which is exactly what I said. I don't consider any felony to be "mild", I am sorry you seem to. So you are saying that someone like Dawkins who thinks an act that would make the actor a felon and registered sex offender if convicted is less serious than teaching a child about the Bible is on solid ground? You have got to be kidding me.

Could you imagine if someone who was respected in the theistic community wrote a book that said, "Though molestation is bad, it is way less harmful to the child than teaching them about evolution. In fact, I was molested as a child and I thought it was kind of funny myself."? You guys would go nuts! For some reason Dawkins gets a complete pass when making these same kinds of nutty remarks.

---

---

I disagree. There is no such thing as a "mild" molestation, it's all a felony and for good reason. The fact that Dawkins does minimize it is apparent by his view that it is less harmful to a child than the teaching of religion (which of course is not a felony because it harms the child in no way). It's disgusting that someone would think that the sexual abuse of a child is better for a child than teaching them that they should love their neighbor and do unto others as they want done to themselves. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.

*sigh* FINE FINE - Lets just say I agree with you. I agree with EVERYTHING you say. You are absolutely right about Dawkins 110% hands down absolutely correct in this situation.

Now what?

---

Well if you were serious, then I'd consider you a fair and intellectually honest person.

[HeyItsZeus]

I still don't understand why you all are bothering. You will not change his views. If he doesn't get it already he never will.

[Jaysyn]

Now what?

He's still a deluded bible-thumper who's only redeeming quality on these forums is the total hilarity of his misguided & forgettable statements?