manicstreetpreacher wonders whether it can get any worse.
A comment was posted on my thread about Dawkins’ public rejection of a debate against American Christian apologist William Lane Craig by Galactor. The comment refers to a video of Craig grossly misrepresenting Dawkins’ views on religious upbringing constituting child abuse.
In a video posted on the drcragvideos YouTube channel entitled “Richard Dawkins and Fascism”, Craig is filmed saying that in Chapter 9 of The God Delusion, Dawkins proposes/ discusses/ implies/ whatever piece of verbal casuistry you wish to attach to it that the state ought to separate children from their religious parents by force. Anyone who has actually bothered to read Dawkins’ book will know that he says no such thing.
I post the original video, together with a response from another YouTube user and a comment Dawkins himself posted on the RichardDawkins.net debate forum in reply to the video so readers can make up their own minds.
The potentially libellous video in full from “drcraigvideos”:
A handy response from another YouTube user:
You can read Robert M Price’s damning assessment on Craig’s biblical scholarship to which the clip refers here.
Dawkins’ response to the video on the RD.net forum:
Re: Richard Dawkins on the Bill O’Reilly Show october 9th 2009
by Richard Dawkins >> Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:10 pm
Do we have any legally savvy readers who might comment on whether Craig’s remarks in this film are actually libellous? I have described as child abuse the labelling of small children with the religion of their parents. I have also described as child abuse the practice of frightening children (the effects often last their whole life through) by teaching them they might fry in hell after death. Craig goes from that to the absurd statement that I would, if in political power, go into homes, forcibly seize children and take them away from their families. Of course I wouldn’t. My aim is only to RAISE CONSCIOUSNESS so that our whole society recognizes the evil that is being done to children.
If you look at the Comments on the YouTube version of this film, there is a particularly obnoxious character called “DrCraigVideos” who repeatedly states that in Chapter 9 of <em>The God Delusion</em> I advocate state seizure of children. Numerous other posters challenge him to give a page reference, but he repeatedly fails to do so, merely saying “Chapter 9”. Some commenters seem to assume that “DrCraigVideos” is Craig himself, although he frequently refers in the third person to “Dr” Craig (amusingly I am just plain “Dawkins”). Can anyone throw any light on this? Is “DrCraigVideos” the same individual as William Lane Craig?
And is Craig’s claim, in the film, libellous?
Richard
This is an absolutely disgraceful smear tactic by Craig. Just when I thought that my opinion of the man couldn’t possibly get any lower, he resorts to outright lies to discredit Dawkins and join the ranks of O’Reilly, Robertson, Falwell and Coulter as a conservative TV pundit dedicated to bashing all things secular.
Never mind scraping the bottom of the barrel, we’ve removed the base entirely from the mo-fo and are tunnelling straight for Oz!
Tags: Amish, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, child abuse, christianity, Dawkins and Fascism, jerry falwell, pat robertson, Religion, richard dawkins, William Lane Craig
manicstreetpreacher 
09/04/2010 at 20:15 |
as usual, theistic people don’t, even just unable to think logically in many debates. they are so wrapped up with their believes, and… Oh yeah… they are so well trained to use their holy bible to see the world, and therefore don’t think otherwise. when atheist people like me asking question that are not compatible to their religious believe, here comes trouble…. they get angry or even gone mad :)) and start saying things to insult their opponents. that’s just the way they work, their mindset, shallow and ignorant.
I see here, unlike Richard Dawkins, the mofo Craig is very expert in word manipulation. His wording are dangerous, poisonous, and instigates public. Richard Dawkins on the other hand is so pure, natural-saying things based on scientific truth, and their implication to our very real life.
Thank you, Richard Dawkins,
Bill
21/12/2010 at 12:47 |
Yeah right.
16/01/2013 at 15:38 |
I must say that if Dawkins thinks that something is child abuse and if he was in political power, he would be morally obligated to take steps to change it so that religious education would be outlawed. So, either way, he is implying that religious education should be made illegal or that he would try to make a form of child abuse illegal.
“Richard Dawkins on the other hand is so pure, natural-saying things based on scientific truth,”
LOL, where is his scientific evidence that religious education is the same as child abuse? What about the entire book he wrote for children on his own worldview, is that child abuse too? Seems a little hypocritical.
16/01/2013 at 15:39 |
I meant to say “…or that he would NOT try to make a form of child abuse illegal.”
31/03/2014 at 14:48 |
Thanks for providing me with a comment of Dawkins specifically denying that he was implying that the state ought to remove children from their religious homes. I’m going to cover this issue in a video and it will come in handy.