However, it has not been shown that it is specifically sexual abuse, as you (OMGF) explicitly stated; it also has not been shown that the guilt of a handful of extremists should reflect on all theists, or even on all Jews.

How is it not sexual abuse for the rabbi to suck on the boy's penis? Also, no one is saying that the guilt of a handful should reflect on all theists. The point was that your argument was to protect practices like this under the banner of religious freedom. Not all Jews have to participate in this act for us to condemn those that do and revoke their religious shielding. They should not be allowed to harm children and hide behind their religion.

I have nothing against investigating possible abuses, but when unsupported claims of abuse are made, they are no more worthy of consideration than unsupported claims about...gods, say, or flying spaghetti.

And apparently you won't allow Dawkins to have an opinion on the matter, else he is making unsupported claims and is way out of bounds. I happen to believe that some religious practices are child abuse as well. Am I just as worthy of scorn as Dawkins?

As I recall, I agreed that any of Delusion's statements, taken individually and with quite a lot of emphasis on every "might" and "may", could be interpreted as Dawkins just brainstorming, rather than advocating the abuse hypothesis.

And what if it was? Is he not allowed to his opinion? I don't recall him ever saying definitively that religion is child abuse, nor have I heard or seen him say that all religious parents are felons. You have not met your burden of proof.

If so much as calling a child Christian or Muslim counts as an offense — apparently regardless of their particular sect's severity or any otherwise normal and loving relationships that child may enjoy — what possible religious activity wouldn't be an offense, when applied to a child?

Dawkins has stated quite clearly that he does not deem teaching children about religion to be abuse. He does find it quite absurd to call a child a Muslim or Xian child.

Condemning people to death just because of what they think is neither practical nor ethical, no matter how hostile those thoughts may be.

You're missing the point. He's saying that a case could be made that it is self-defense to act against one who is about to harm you due to their beliefs. If one has a belief that they must kill you in order save their own life, then it can be considered self defense if you know an attack is imminent. Harris, however, is only demonstrating the dangers of faith, however, not actually making an argument for thought crime.

Actually, OMGF, it does. If a religious reader is not an atheist after reading the book — if the book does not work as he intends — the only explanation offered is that they must have been brainwashed as babies. The possibility that a religious reader might not agree with him, but that it might have nothing to do with indoctrination, is not entertained.

I'm incredulous as to how you could have missed the point of what he said so incredibly badly, when it's spelled out in plain English. He starts off with the word "If" meaning that he's not saying that it will definitely have the intended effect. He even follows up the first sentence with, "What presumptuous optimism!" The only way to come away with your interpretation is to read it as uncharitably as possible, to skip over the first word and the second sentence, and to, frankly, come in with a pre-conceived bias that Dawkins is saying something he's not.

You are correct; I am in error.

Thank you. My estimation of you just went up.

But calling someone's core beliefs not only "barking mad" but also "vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent" — and thank you for the full quote — is hardly the way to win them over, which was the initial point of my statement. And sticking in a "we would call Christianity all these things, if we weren't a bunch of spineless toadies" clause, doesn't make matters any better!

First off, it's singular belief, not core beliefs. Second, is he wrong? Yes, he uses coarse language, and maybe it isn't the best way to get believers to listen, but history is full of examples of brashness winning the day while tact only encouraged the status quo. You may disagree with his assessment or his tactics, but at least now you can properly state what it is you disagree with.

...That still doesn't make the Hartung or Dawkins interpretations of "love thy neighbor" any less mistaken.

Your argument was almost entirely based on the ad hominem, so I don't know what you are using to say that he's wrong, except for modern apologetics which is culturally evolved from the time of Jesus. He may be wrong. It's possible that the Bible does mean literally everyone when it speaks of one's neighbors, but there is good reason to believe that it didn't as well.

Ah, dear me, are we bringing "unscrupulous apologists" into this?

It's a known fact that there are apologists out there who lie for Jesus and misrepresent, distort, and outright lie about what their opponents say. Many things you were saying were indicative of other things I've seen from such liars. If I jumped to conclusions about where you got your misinformation, my apologies, but it seemed a safe bet at the time.

When we started this conversation, I had hoped that we were all the kind of people who could remember that two could disagree, without one being enthralled to some great oppressive conspiracy.

I'm not accusing you of being part of any conspiracy or that there is one. Asking you to check your sources does not indicate anything of the sort. Let's not jump off the deep end here.

We all of us — New and old — now look like Dr. Evil's father, accusing chestnuts of being lazy and claiming that Sam Harris invented the question mark. We're fools (or worse) in the eyes of the very people we're trying to convince of our decency.

And, I disagree. I don't think we can get to where we want to be by placating the religious and not daring to disagree with them. If we let them run roughshod over us, then we will never attain equality, because they certainly will never simply give it to us. And, if we have to make arguments that attack their immorality, so much the better. One of their incorrect claims is that they have a monopoly on morality. Being able to point out that not only don't they have a monopoly, but that they are rather immoral in many ways is a good strategy in my opinion, even though it's akin to shaming them into behaving well.

Still, here I am again. Let's see whether Achilles can catch up with the tortoise this time...

Do you think we are lying to you or something? Google is your friend.

I was sure you weren't. But it was certainly possible that Hitchens was...mistaken. Or that his source was mistaken. Or that his source was lying. I now know that the metzitzah b'peh is an actual ritual, thanks to your efforts, and that it is dangerous and probably deserves to be prosecuted. I do apologize, and sincerely, for my opinions otherwise (real or imagined).

However, it has not been shown that it is specifically sexual abuse, as you (OMGF) explicitly stated; it also has not been shown that the guilt of a handful of extremists should reflect on all theists, or even on all Jews.

...so why is it OK for parents to do other things that could very well hurt their children? Why is it not OK to investigate whether those things do hurt their children or ask the question?

I think we've been over this. I have nothing against investigating possible abuses, but when unsupported claims of abuse are made, they are no more worthy of consideration than unsupported claims about...gods, say, or flying spaghetti. It can't be shown that just taking your child to church is harmful, for any meaningful definition of "harmful" (or asking the Passover Questions, or whatever ritual you choose that involves a whole family).

Frankly, your original claim was that Dawkins, "claims that all religious parents are guilty of a felony," which is simply not true.

Now I know that we've been over this. As I recall, I agreed that any of Delusion's statements, taken individually and with quite a lot of emphasis on every "might" and "may", could be interpreted as Dawkins just brainstorming, rather than advocating the abuse hypothesis. Taken in context with each other, and with Dawkin's outside statements...and especially given that promoting the abuse hypothesis is a confessed goal of the book in its first pages, that an entire chapter of the book is devoted to the hypothesis, and that no serious look at the evidence against the hypothesis is ever presented... Well, sir, the most obvious explanation is that the forgiving reading is not the correct one, and that the Defensor Infidei really meant what he said.

If so much as calling a child Christian or Muslim counts as an offense -- apparently regardless of their particular sect's severity or any otherwise normal and loving relationships that child may enjoy -- what possible religious activity wouldn't be an offense, when applied to a child? And if Dawkins is saying that all religious activities applied to children are abusive, and if child abuse is (rightly) a crime, then Dawkins must be saying that religious indoctrination is a crime. And therefore anybody who engages in indoctrination -- including all those otherwise moderate and loving parents -- is a criminal. (Note that he does not distinguish between sects and faiths; everyone from the Incas to the Inquisition to Irish Catholics is included in Chapter Eight.) We've done a lot of talking here, but it really is as simple as that. I'm sorry I didn't make the logical progression clearer to you from the start.

IIRC Harris was specifically referring to beliefs like 'anyone who doesn't follow religion X deserves death'. I think it at least arguable that killing someone who believes that is justifiable self defense.

No, Mr. Baerg. I am sorry, but it is not. Condemning people to death just because of what they think is neither practical nor ethical, no matter how hostile those thoughts may be. The proper response to hostile actions is certainly a point of argument. But not anything so fuzzy as "propositions".

Dawkins actually says this:

"If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down. What presumptuous optimism! Of course, dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument, their resistance built up over years of childhood indoctrination using methods that took centuries to mature (whether by evolution or design)."(Preface page 5)

Yes, I'm sure that sound exactly like he thinks everyone will agree with him except for those blankety blank faith-heads who he wants to insult.

Actually, OMGF, it does. If a religious reader is not an atheist after reading the book -- if the book does not work as he intends -- the only explanation offered is that they must have been brainwashed as babies. The possibility that a religious reader might not agree with him, but that it might have nothing to do with indoctrination, is not entertained.

On page 271 he says that Ghandi was not a Xian

You are correct; I am in error. I seem to have focused on the implication that Gandhi's religion was somehow "incidental", and had nothing to do with either his philosophy or that of Martin Luther King (page 271, again). While this is in itself a tenuous proposition, it is true that Dawkins never denied Gandhi's identity as a Hindu. Mea culpa.

Wrong again. On pg. 253, he says:

[snip quote from p. 253]

I think anyone can read that and see that once again you have misrerpresented what he said. Incidentally, do you disagree with him on this? I too think that the doctrine that we are all sinners in need of saving through atonement to be hateful and vicious.

Oh, so do I. But calling someone's core beliefs not only "barking mad" but also "vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent" -- and thank you for the full quote -- is hardly the way to win them over, which was the initial point of my statement. And sticking in a "we would call Christianity all these things, if we weren't a bunch of spineless toadies" clause, doesn't make matters any better!

First of all, Naming Hartung as an anti-semite is an ad hominem attack. Second of all, it doesn't look like it's true.

Again, you're in the right here, and I repent in dust and ashes. I'm considering sending an apology letter to Mr. Hartung himself.

...That still doesn't make the Hartung or Dawkins interpretations of "love thy neighbor" any less mistaken.

My suggestion is that you actually go look at the source material instead of getting your material from unscrupulous apologists or well-meaning apologists that are too gullible and simply accept what the lying apologists tell them is true.

Ah, dear me, are we bringing "unscrupulous apologists" into this? Why not trot out the "outside agitators" too? And the "terrorist sleeper cells" and the "pinko spies" and the "fellow travelers" and the "Yankee sympathizers"? Ha, we can have a parade!

When we started this conversation, I had hoped that we were all the kind of people who could remember that two could disagree, without one being enthralled to some great oppressive conspiracy. Perhaps that is not the case? I criticize New Atheism because it seems almost tailor-made not to advance the goals we all share:

...to be seen and to say, "Hey, I'm not ashamed to be an atheist." Another would be to state loudly and clearly that atheism != immorality and that theism != morality necessarily. Also, I think another point is to put religious thought to the test, let's actually go through and critically examine the religious thought that until now was always considered off-limits.

We all of us -- New and old -- now look like Dr. Evil's father, accusing chestnuts of being lazy and claiming that Sam Harris invented the question mark. We're fools (or worse) in the eyes of the very people we're trying to convince of our decency.

Now, if a gaggle of theologians and pulpit-pounders have somehow stumbled onto the same conclusions that anybody else could, with some critical thinking and common sense... Well, I can't answer for them.

If you are going to claim that religious education actually is child abuse, it must be demonstrated according to the actual definition of child abuse: physical or psychological harm, caused with malicious intent.

No one has claimed that. It is only claimed that some forms of teachings are abuse. And, no, abuse does not have to have malicious intent. Does a pedophile have malicious intent, or does the pedophile actually think that children want what he/she has?

3. If you are going to claim that WI v. Y is invalid, you must explain why, without assuming there is some vast right-wing conspiracy to lock up children in Amish tourist traps.

I already have by posing questions that you can't answer that show the deficiency with the ruling. By the ruling, we have to allow rabbis to sexually abuse children. By standing with the ruling, you are standing for this practice and the "right" of parents and rabbis to be immune from prosecution for it. Who cares if children contract herpes and die, so long as we allow any religious practice, no matter how odious, simply because someone put the stamp of religion on it.

4. If you are going to claim that Dawkins was right about Gandhi, you must show why every account of the man ever written (including his own) is wrong.

IOW, even after I showed you that your claims about what Dawkins said about Gandhi were wrong, you still claim that you are right and that I need to prove it? Go back and actually look at the passages I cited FFS.

For 5 and 6, I didn't answer those parts, nor do I care to due to all the effort I've already put in to show you how spectacularly wrong you've been in your assertions.

7. Quite honestly, I don't know how one can put a positive spin on "barking mad" or "faith-heads" or "abdication of responsibility", to say nothing of blaming the victim or promoting the torture of innocent people. But you're welcome to try.

Except that what you are saying is meant by those terms is NOT WHAT IS MEANT! You are claiming that because you've quoted things out of context that I have to prove to you that your out of context quote is OK. This is what I have done by showing you how you quoted out of context and showing you what the context is! Now, you continue to hold that your out of context quote is accurate and holds, even though I quoted the exact passages for you!

You sir, are behaving rather dishonestly in this. You've made some claims that quite frankly were wrong and I went into the actual source material to show you how and why they were wrong, yet you've ignored all of that and insist that you are right, no matter what the actual authors that you are maligning said. Further, it is YOU who have made the claims that you have failed to back up, yet somehow it is up to me to disprove your claims, else they hold true? This is an abdication of your responsibilities to uphold your end of the debate. You have lost, and lost spectacularly. Have some integrity and admit that at least most of your argument is full of carp. Further, go back and actually read the passages I cited that show how full of it your arguments are. You should be embarrassed.

What it would take for me to admit that I am wrong.

1. If you are going to claim that Dawkins (or some other spokesperson for the New Atheism) does not believe that religious education is a form of child abuse, they must have made an explicit statement to that effect. Said statement must either explain or denounce all earlier statements endorsing that claim, including the statement-of-purpose in Delusion's preface, statements that all religion is a destructive influence (equivalent to a virus or to physical violence) to which innocents should not be exposed, or statements that so much as calling a child religious is inherently wrong.

2. If you are going to claim that religious education actually is child abuse, it must be demonstrated according to the actual definition of child abuse: physical or psychological harm, caused with malicious intent. (Simply telling frightening stories or untrue fables to children, while obviously deplorable, is not a form of child abuse; the "Santa Claus" or "Lover's Lane axe murderer" legends are considered perfectly acceptable.) You must further demonstrate that said harm is caused by religion specifically, rather than by a pre-existing disorder in the student or educator, and by religion per se, rather than a specific cult or sect.

3. If you are going to claim that WI v. Y is invalid, you must explain why, without assuming there is some vast right-wing conspiracy to lock up children in Amish tourist traps. You must show why considerations of legal procedure and civil rights should be set aside for certain citizens, and which ones; or why the non-opinion of one Justice should be preferred to the ruling of the entire Court (including said Justice); or where specifically the Court was flawed in its legal reasoning.

3a. I thank you for the information on Hasidim practices. They are certainly questionable, and if it is true that the mayor was more influenced by a desire for the Jewish vote than by a desire for public safety (or investigating whether this practice properly counts as sexual abuse), then a pox on all their houses. But pointing out the follies of particular religions (Hasidic, Incan or Inquisitorial) does not validate claims to the universal evil of religious education, or invalidate WI v. Y.

4. If you are going to claim that Dawkins was right about Gandhi, you must show why every account of the man ever written (including his own) is wrong. It should go without saying that unjustified statements like "Well, that's just what a man in a Hindu country would say", or "He wasn't a total lunatic, so he wasn't really religious" won't cut it.

5. If you are going to claim that Buddhism and Confucianism really aren't religions, you must explain how a purely secular philosophy can still accomodate souls, karma, reincarnation, priesthoods, hells, heavens (and the mandates thereof), prayer (and the wheels and flags thereof), gods and demons.

6. If you are going to claim that Gay Pride is a success, come up with a reasonable definition of "success" that still includes institutionalized discrimination by both state and federal governments. "At least it's not a criminal offense these days" also won't cut it.

7. Quite honestly, I don't know how one can put a positive spin on "barking mad" or "faith-heads" or "abdication of responsibility", to say nothing of blaming the victim or promoting the torture of innocent people. But you're welcome to try.

In the Preface, the only possible reason Dawkins acknowledges for someone to disagree with him is that they are "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads"...which, as I've pointed out, isn't even a very good insult.

Nor is your supposition very accurate. Dawkins actually says this:

If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down. What presumptuous optimism! Of course, dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument, their resistance built up over years of childhood indoctrination using methods that took centuries to mature (whether by evolution or design).

(Preface page 5)
Yes, I'm sure that sound exactly like he thinks everyone will agree with him except for those blankety blank faith-heads who he wants to insult.

On the other hand... Dawkins claims that "Gandhi wasn't religious".

Pg. 45 he claims Ghandi was a secularist in that he wanted India to be not a Hindu nation but simply a nation that was tolerant to all. On page 271 he says that Ghandi was not a Xian, which I checked around and found at least one source that came close to making it appear as if Dawkins said what you attribute to him. Unfortunately for you, this appears to be in error as well.

Delusion, for instance, refers to Christians collectively as "barking mad"...

Wrong again. On pg. 253, he says:

I have described the atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent. We should also dismiss it as barking mad, but for its ubiquitous familiarity which has dulled our objectivity. If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed in payment - thereby, incidentally, condemning remote future generations of jews to pogroms and persecution as 'Christ-killers'...

I think anyone can read that and see that once again you have misrerpresented what he said. Incidentally, do you disagree with him on this? I too think that the doctrine that we are all sinners in need of saving through atonement to be hateful and vicious.

At one point, Dawkins even claims that Jesus never meant for "love thy neighbor" to apply to non-Jews. His interpretation is entirely based on the views of one man, a known anti-Semite, and completely at odds with Jesus' own interpretation (as shown in the Sermon on the Mount, the Miracle of the Centurion's Servant, and the Great Commission).

First of all, Naming Hartung as an anti-semite is an ad hominem attack. Second of all, it doesn't look like it's true. I found an article where it was claimed that he was an anti-semite in Slate by Judith Shulevitz, in which he replied with this:

My view of genocide, including the Holocaust and contrary to Schulevitz characterization, is that it is always an unjustified evil. Whether genocide occurs as a spontaneous reaction of an oppressed majority against an oppressive minority, as recently occurred in Rwanda, or an act conceptualized as an order from God, as in ... In the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded (Deuteronomy 20:16-17).

So far you are batting a big zero. Shall I move onto Harris now? I also have a copy of The End of Faith.

According to him, "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing in them".

Nice quote. Too bad it's taken completely out of context. I suggest you go back and read pages 52-53 in his book where he talks about this. He starts off by talking about how beliefs can shape our emotional lives, like the belief that "Your daughter is being slowly tortured in an English jail." He then goes on to the paragraph in question:

The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense...

He's obviously not saying what you attribute to him.

I know I didn't address all your contentions, but at this point since you've misrepresented and misquoted every single one that I have found the source material on, I'm loathe to continue. I've already spent too much time on this. My suggestion is that you actually go look at the source material instead of getting your material from unscrupulous apologists or well-meaning apologists that are too gullible and simply accept what the lying apologists tell them is true.

but I have read some of the work of Sam Harris. According to him, "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing in them"

IIRC Harris was specifically referring to beliefs like 'anyone who doesn't follow religion X deserves death'. I think it at least arguable that killing someone who believes that is justifiable self defense.

As a general comment, to everybody who is quoting some author, especially to denounce that author's views: Please refer to the exact book & page to make it easy to find the context & judge whether the commenter's interpretation is accurate.

Since I didn't have a copy of either of Harris' books on hand I couldn't follow my own request just now, but please do that if possible.

Delusion, for instance, refers to Christians collectively as "barking mad" and the Bible collectively as "just plain wierd". In the Preface, the only possible reason Dawkins acknowledges for someone to disagree with him is that they are "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads"...which, as I've pointed out, isn't even a very good insult. As I've also pointed out, he also accuses any scientists who don't agree with his views of pandering to religion, and of "a total abdication of responsibility". He will not accept that Dyson, Gould, Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Faraday, Maxwell, or even Peacocke-Stannard-and-Polkinghorne, can really be "genuine specimens of good scientists who are sincerely religious in the full, traditional sense". His essay on "How Moderation in Faith Fosters Fanaticism" is a classic example of "blaming the victim"; fanatics are to blame for their own fanaticism, and holding anyone else responsible is both absurd and unjust. (And, as our recent adventures with Sadaam Hussein have revealed, messy.)

But at least he's not advocating a state run by Thought Police. I'm not familiar with Hitchens, but I have read some of the work of Sam Harris. According to him, "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing in them". He tells us which people we should kill first, when he baldly claims that "Muslims" -- again collectively -- "are deranged by their faith". And after suggesting that intentional torture is morally equivalent to collateral damage, and acceptable because "it need not impose a significant risk of death or permanent injury", he claims that we should "abduct the nearest and dearest of suspected terrorists -- their wives, mothers and daughters -- and torture them as well."

I hope that we all understand why executing people for their beliefs, regardless of their actions, and torturing whole families because a relative is suspected of a crime...would be a Bad Thing.

So, second example. Dawkins et alia have caught a lot of flak for supposed ignorance. Most of these charges can be dismissed out of hand: "You just don't understand the real meaning of (insert impossible doctrine)", or "You aren't a professional theologian and have no right to comment on (insert impossible doctrine).

On the other hand... Dawkins claims that "Gandhi wasn't religious". A cursory glance at any of his biographies (including his autobiography) reveals that despite his hatred of the caste system, he was a devout Hindu. Dawkins claims that Buddhism and Confucianism aren't religions. This would certainly come as a surprise to the 350-million-plus Buddhists and Confucians in the world, who build temples, pray to various gods and spirits, and follow the guidance of elaborate religious hierarchies. At one point, Dawkins even claims that Jesus never meant for "love thy neighbor" to apply to non-Jews. His interpretation is entirely based on the views of one man, a known anti-Semite, and completely at odds with Jesus' own interpretation (as shown in the Sermon on the Mount, the Miracle of the Centurion's Servant, and the Great Commission). And of course, there is the bit about how New Atheism should model itself on the Gay Pride movement, because it's been so successful in America. American homosexuals cannot legally marry, or serve openly in the military; Gay Pride has hardly been a smashing success so far.

These are very basic facts. Dawkins, and those atheists who agree with him, have got their basic facts wrong. For a supposedly knowledge-based movement, this kind of ignorance is inexplicable.

I'd appreciate some newspaper articles for the metzitzah b'peh, since it seems so outrageous, and doesn't line up with anything in Judaism that I know of.

Do you think we are lying to you or something? Google is your friend.

So, how about it? Would you still defend the rights of parents and religious leaders to perform acts of sexual abuse on children and even put their lives in jeopardy from STDs (even if they don't die, they have an STD) simply because their religion says it's OK to sexually molest children? If the pope were to make an infallible ruling that children molested by priests are closer to god and that it is now religious teaching that it's OK for priests to molest children, would you suddenly decide that it's OK for priests to molest children? I'm assuming that you wouldn't find that to be OK, so why is it OK for parents to do other things that could very well hurt their children? Why is it not OK to investigate whether those things do hurt their children or ask the question? Do you think that atheist parents haven't been discriminated against because their atheism was ruled by the courts to be a deleterious effect on the well-being of the child?

I offered a first example of this from Delusion, the "religious education as abuse" argument. After initial claims by Alex Weaver that Dawkins never made such an argument, I ran through the (insufficient) evidence given in Delusion, and on Dawkins' website, to show that he was in fact making this suggestion. OMGF then asked whether Dawkins was endorsing the "child abuse" theory, or merely offering it as a hypothesis. I replied that statments made in Delusion, (especially in the statement-of-purpose at the beginning of the book), on the previously mentioned website, and in other easily available publications, all imply that Dawkins does hold the theory to be true.

And I opened my copy of Delusion and read it and found that your claims about what it says were unfounded. I stated as such and you didn't back up your claims. I also commented on your claims that the other sources and don't ever recall you showing how they constitute an unequivocal claim to what you claim they say. Frankly, your original claim was that Dawkins, "claims that all religious parents are guilty of a felony," which is simply not true. He questions whether certain practices should be considered abuse (remember, I actually pulled out my copy and read it then responded to you). You have failed to prove your point that Dawkins thinks all religious parents are guilty of a felony or that he has said something so inflamatory as to get all of our underwear in a bunch.

It's not only that the parents tell the child they will go to hell, but so will all their friends who don't believe. And kids don't realize this is fantasy, they believe it is true.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/audio/2008/feb/14/richard.dawkins

Podcast where Dawkins talks about that exact claim you make. He says the child abuse comes in two forms:
1) labeling a child a christian/muslim/whatever child before that child is truly able to understand even what the terms mean, much less whether or not they agree with the belief. Similiarly, you wouldn't label a child of a racist father a racist child; they may turn out to be a racist, but that comes later.
2) The specific threat of punshiments about what will happen if the child fails to follow the religion, in this case, referring to the threat of eternal hellfire and torture. If you could defend telling a child, who will believe in santa clause, that unless they follow a religion they will be tortured forever, I'd love to hear it.