Press Commentary on Threats at Colorado

Just substitute the word Muslim for Christian and you got yourself a call to jihad.

Ahem. Pls avoid foul language and limit yourselves to substantive comments. I have no time for unenlightening pontifications, and I am sure others feel the same way.

The ID nonsense is just an offshoot of the Dominionist (Christian Reconstructionist) movement.

Enjoy.

Suspect Missing in Evolution Death-Threat Case Kristen Philipkoski 07.20.07 | 2:00 AM An anti-evolutionary Christian extremist suspected of sending threatening letters to biology professors at the University of Colorado has gone on the lam, according to a staff member familiar with a police investigation into the matter. Police at the University of Colorado say they know the identity of the individual who sent threatening letters to several biology professors who taught evolution. However, the police won't name the individual until they make an arrest, said detective lieutenant commander John Kish. Continues at: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/07/colorado_threats

Can anyone say "Ted Kaczynski"? That's the first thing I thought of when this story appeared on PT a few weeks back. This needs to be taken seriously.

The first rule you learn as a child is the parent rule of a successful society, say, one like America.

Whatever is unpleasant or hurtful to you is exactly what you should not inflict on others.

Something like a "Golden Rule," eh?

The second rule you learn as a child is that what you perceive as unpleasant or hurtful is not really that bad.

As you grow you learn to manage, mitigate, the discomfort you may feel on occasion. As you gain more experience at being a functional human being, you learn that the things that frighten or disgust you also affect others in a similar way. But not everyone.

Most people think the flesh of cattle is delicious and worth splurging on. Some don't, instead granting to cows privileges that they don't grant to humans . Just one example. You can think of more.

Maturity in humans, and in human societies are, I think, directly related. To hear the paranoiac rhetoric of this fool reminds me that the coarsening and floundering inefficacy of our federal government is guaranteed by the failure of the last couple of generations of parents to instill civics, the art of civil behavior (see above noted first lessons), and their importance to civilization, into their children.

Such mundanities as good manners, patience and the ability to converse intelligently and purposefully just seem to have slipped away.

The very reason that America exists is that enough people agreed at a point in time to not attempt to sanction the private proclivities of their neighbors!

OK, from the top:
Life: you are alive.
Liberty: you are happiest in that state.
The "purfuit" of happiness: follows, doesn't it.

If you expect these things to be the foundation of your life and do indeed desire to live in such a state within a larger population, it is evident the the fulfillment of your desire is dependent upon the goodwill and approval of the rest of "the people." Given that you are one of the people, it is (should be?) apparent that your own goodwill and approval is a commodity eagerly sought by the rest of the people.

In other words, a strong and free society, able to care for itself and all of its parts while avoiding intramural squabbles in favor of reasonable, substantive debate, is fully dependent on individual citizens behaving civily in their personal and public lives. As a matter of routine.

This knucklehead, the quasi-human, was never taught. Or, if he was, he is apparently unable to comprehend. In the latter case, more is the pity. He is not only an asshole, but he is perfectly happy being so. His mother must weep.

Thanks to raven.

We now know that the punk ran away like the playground bully when the teacher shows up.

"Every true Christian should be ready and willing to take up arms to kill the enemies of Christian society." Just substitute the word Muslim for Christian and you got yourself a call to jihad.

Uh, Clarissa, you're making a completely unimportant and, frankly, stupid distinction. The point is that both Kaczynski and Korn are ideological extremists who pose(d) a threat to others and to the fabric of society. The specifics of what they believe in aren't important, except to those who sympathize with the goals of one or the other.

Kaczynski made up his own religion; Korn buys into someone else's. So what?

There is no difference whatsoever in religious fuckwittery of any denomination. All religious followers are deluded, slightly or entirely.

The ID nonsense is just an offshoot of the Dominionist (Christian Reconstructionist) movement.

— Tim Fuller

Wikipedia: Efforts by family to help Seung-Hui Cho Cho's mother, becoming increasingly concerned about Cho's inattention to classwork, his time spent out of the classroom and his asocial behavior, sought help for Cho during summer 2006 from various churches throughout the Northern Virginia community.[24] According to Dong Cheol Lee, minister of One Mind Church --- a Presbyterian church in Woodbridge, a community in Prince William County, Virginia, Cho's mother sought help from the church for Cho's problems. Lee added that "[Cho's] problem needed to be solved by spiritual power ... "[t]hat's why she came to our church --- because we were helping several people like him." Members of Lee's church even told Cho's mother that "[Cho] was afflicted by demonic power and needed deliverance." Before the church could start its work, Cho returned to school to start his senior year at Virginia Tech.[24]

Unless, of course, you argue that atheism is a religion in its own right.

He of course had extremist political views, but that simply demonstrates that any system can be used to excuse violence.

Laarson wrote: On the first statement, there are always the mentally ill, which we are likely discussing here. In the real ill, religion does seem to be a preferential choice to explain away the voices et cetera, but it is likely that any religion fit. For the more functional nutcases, like Kaczynski and Korn, there could perhaps be a slight difference depending on how aggression is handled by the party/religion.

I have often wondered if the mentally ill that are driven to violence in the name of religion would be violent if there was no religious justification. If lunatics didn't know anything about demonic possession, would they kill their wives, husbands, children (Andrea Yates), anyway? Or would they find some other reason to justify their predilection for murder? Is there something about religious fervor that makes people violent? What is the cause and what is the effect here? Has this been investigated? Has research been done on this?

What Flint said. My original comment about Kaczynski was about the danger that people like Korn pose to society. Doesn't matter whether Kaczynski was an atheist or a buddhist. Doesn't matter whether Korn is a religious rightwingnut or supplicant to the FSM. It's not what his rationalization is. It's the fact that he feels justified in sending his messages and openly threatening people.

Robin asked "If lunatics didn't know anything about demonic possession, would they kill their wives, husbands, children (Andrea Yates), anyway?"

Maybe the Andrea Yates situation could be equated to reliance on bogus cancer treatments that cause people to forego more effective treatments. Yates needed help for severe post partum depression, but her family relied on their religion instead of seeking medical intervention.

I have often wondered if the mentally ill that are driven to violence in the name of religion would be violent if there was no religious justification.

The demonic possession theory of mental illness is left over from the middle ages. Zyprexa and intensive therapy would probably have worked better.

They've simply embraced an ideology that makes what is unthinkable to western eyes normal.

I want to be very, very clear in this post, because I don't want what I say to be perceived as laying blame on Cho's family, who have endured enough tragedy.

Cho's mental illness probably has a very strong biological component, and likely would have expressed itself in any circumstances.

Nevertheless, certain aspects of the US environment may have contributed to the tragedy.

Not only did Cho's mother respond to his mental illness with fundamentalism rather than modern scientific medicine, but Cho's sister works and has worked in various Bush administration State Department jobs since 2004, and was active in campus "Christian" activities in college and beyond.

These facts suggest (strongly suggest, actually) that Cho may have been exposed to the current US right wing media, such as Fox News and its fellow travelers. It's highly plausible that the family may self-identify with the "religious right".

Also supporting this conjecture is the lack of attack on the family by the US media. Had Cho had a sister who attended peace protests, for example, the US media would surely have strongly implied that this caused the massacre.

Is this relevant? Of course it is. For the past ten years, and especially for the past five years, US "conservative" commentators have tended to claim allegiance to the fundamentalism, and also to peddle a message of implied (or outright) threats of violence toward "liberals" and others they dislike. I would, of course, include claims that God will use the weather to kill homosexuals in this category. This is a general trend, with some exceptions, of course, but it is the trend. The rigidly ideological/authoritarian/anti-intellectual/violence-promoting tendency of a "movement" is a historically familiar one, of course.

It is not unreasonable to conjecture that this aspect of US society may have pushed an unbalanced, undertreated mentally ill individual in the direction of severe violence. It would be ureasonable to suggest the opposite, actually. If, in fact, a mentally ill young man was raised in an environment in which mainstream care was resisted, and propaganda urging violence as the way to deal with opponents, directly or through clear implication, was frequently in the background, the probability of a tragedy may have been enhanced.

This is not the "fault" of any one individual or family, although public speakers who call for unjustified violence, and "journalists" who seek to give such calls "respectability", can hardly be described as "responsible".

I know I'm going to flamed for this, and possibly called a troll, but whatever.

Reading what has been posted on previous pandasthumb articles, its obvious that from an intellectual standpoint, the guy isn't hi up on the food chain. But, we do have the first amendment.

Also, last time I checked, he is allowed to consult an attourney on firing whatever charges he wishes. Now, would any competent attourney allow him to do so? No. But he can consult with them.

Finally, unless he's a ninja master, I doubt a pen in his hands is a highly deadly implement. Moreover, he apparently quotes Doug Whites New Day Covenant Church, and then immediately afterwards says he is NOT going to do that.

As far as actual death threats, I'm not seeing it from this guy.

Alright, let's have the flaming commence.

The guy is obsessed, unhinged and persistent. He is escalating. He thinks nothing of trespass and defamation.

If you really care about his freedom, quick pass an amendment protecting the rights of stalkers.

Hamlet -

I don't think the issue is just this guy personally.

I think this particular guy is clearly very mentally ill, which doesn't mean he isn't dangerous. He needs treatment, although tragically, he may have a type of disorder that makes that almost impossible. So far he seems to have committed relatively minor crimes, and the time to stop him is NOW, before a real tragedy unfolds.

The broader issue is the irresponsible use of, and tolerance for, constant threats of violence, by creationists and their political allies.

A common trick is to imply and let dittoheads interpret. On the internet, this can be accomplished by having a "post" by the "blogger" that merely rails against the unpardonable treason of "materialists" or "liberals" or "feminazis" or whatever, without quite mentioning violence. Then it can be followed by thread of near-anonymous comments that rave about specific violent acts, and the "blogger" can laughably deny responsibility.

Other media use other, but similar, techniques.

Of course, the most imbalanced and vulnerable among the audience are the most likely to destroy their own lives by acting this stuff out. Everybody knows that. Pastor Jerry Gibson knows that, Ann Coulter knows that, they all know that. The apparent point of a lot of commentary, unless this group of commentators is far more naive than I imagine (and it is a large group), is to indirectly provoke some vulnerable, mentally ill, lower status individuals to act out such fantasies, while being able to deny any role.

I don't think religion has much to do with the behaviors of crazies like Korn though it does help focus their craziness. Though something being missed here is that when you have religious zealots/crazies who commit these kinds of acts, or threaten to commit these acts (like Korn), they can often find succour in the ranks of their religious compatriots. You generally won't find that among the atheists.

This is a test

what has been posted on previous pandasthumb articles, its obvious that from an intellectual standpoint, the guy isn't hi up on the food chain. But, we do have the first amendment. Also, last time I checked, he is allowed to consult an attourney on firing whatever charges he wishes. Now, would any competent attourney allow him to do so? No. But he can consult with them.

Malicious prosecution From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. While similar to the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally (and maliciously) instituting or pursuing (or causing to be instituted or pursued) a legal action (civil or criminal) that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, "malicious prosecution" is reserved for the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while "malicious use of process" refers to the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.

Of course, Korn hasn't been convicted on anything, but it looks like the judgments are in. And with a flick of the wrist, you can argue that therefore all Christians are insane, (delusional per Dawkins), child abusers (per Dennet AND Dawkins) and that therefore they belong in jail (Zoos, per Dennet.) It an elegant approach, and demonstrates the beauty of the atheist mind.

Let me try this again.

Looking through the letters that have been posted on this site, I do not see the death threat. If there is a death threat, or even the threat of violence, perhaps someone can point that out to me.

He has not even filed any lawsuit yet. I could be wrong, but threatening to file a lawsuit isn't illegal. Perhaps actually filing the law suit might be illegal (malicious prosecution), but you can't charge someone with something they might do, but haven't done yet.

Like I've said before, I don't think this guy is the most intelligent guy out there... (he's not even close), but again, prosecuting him because of that doesn't work.

For those who think he should be arrested, charged, convicted... whatever, I would appreciate you quoting exactly what he's said that makes you think so.

What has he done? He's sent e-mails, and slipped letters under doors. Has he even "stalked" anyone?

Of course, Korn hasn't been convicted on anything, but it looks like the judgments are in.

And with a flick of the wrist, you can argue that therefore all Christians are insane,

(delusional per Dawkins), child abusers (per Dennet AND Dawkins) and that therefore they belong in jail (Zoos, per Dennet.)

It an elegant approach, and demonstrates the beauty of the atheist mind.

Harold, I actually agree with everything you said, except for two things:

I don't find his actions "threatening" right now.

The idea that we shouldn't do nothing and then have the situation escalate, is basically the same idea that Bush used to justify Iraq. Sure, they didn't do anything yet... but they might have WMD's, and the might use them... and so we should do nothing and wait for the situation to escalate.

Hamlet -

I guess I was a bit harsh above. I do sympathize with the fact that you are speaking out in favor of this guy's rights. In a sense, I agree with you, since I also think that his rights should be respected.

I agree with your opinion of the invasion of Iraq, also. However, the analogy doesn't fit, on two grounds. One, he is doing something. And two, no-one is suggesting that we lie about what he is doing and react in a grossly out of proportion way.

I think you are missing the implied threats. I also think that there is already a pattern of escalation, and of building up his nerve to do more and more.

Also, although not yet serious crimes, his actions are already a serious nuisance. Do you want somebody doing this type of stuff at your workplace?

I'm not a lawyer, and the closest I've ever lived to Colorado was Albuquerque, quite a few years ago. Nevertheless, I'm going to suggest that he has already earned a restraining order and a mandatory psychiatric evaluation, at the very least.

Taking appropriate rights-respecting legal action NOW will benefit Mr Korn himself almost as much as it will benefit the victims of his irritating crusade.

He shouldn't be charged with crimes he didn't commit, his rights should be respected, he should be treated humanely, and his obvious mental issues should be taken into account, but that's a far cry from saying nothing should be done.

Doing nothing does nobody any favors, with the possible exception of right wing ghouls who might want to see a mentally ill person act out their fantasies and take the consequences. It certainly doesn't benefit Mr. Korn.

The issue of when we can intervene in the case of a mentally ill person is a very, very complex one, but in this case, it is less complex, because he is already breaking some laws.

Hamlet has a reading comprehension problem at least. Korn's threats are covered in several Panda articles.

The facts.
He has an arrest warrant out on him. The courts and the police don't do this unless they have probable cause.

He has fled to avoid prosecution. This is in itself telling. It is another crime, a dumb move, and it isn't anything that is going to make him look innocent. It is also ominous that he hasn't been caught yet. Bet he is in a xian terrorist safe house somewhere.

Korn will certainly have all legal rights of any citizen including legal representation by as many lawyers as he can dig up. No one has ever said he shouldn't or wouldn't. We are all equal under the law.

CU, Boulder and the police really can't afford to wait on someone like him until there are a dozen or two bodies on the ground. They tried that at Virginia Tech and Columbine and it didn't work very well.

This is playing out like I predicted at the beginning. Korn and the other Xian terrorists are heroes and martyrs to the lie and violence cults.

The DI lied as usual and tried to claim Korn wasn't really a xian terrorist and maybe was a manufactured plant by those heinious criminals at the NSF. Since then, they have been conspicuously silent. If the worst occurs, expect a celebration in Seattle.

This is playing out like I predicted at the beginning. Korn and the other Xian terrorists are heroes and martyrs to the lie and violence cults.

Harold said:

2) Laughably, the biggest Dawkins fans of all are the likes of you - self pitying, narcissistic pseudo-martyrs, eagerly looking for something to be offended by (an attitude not endorsed by the Biblical Jesus, I might add).

Was that the "harsh part" in response to Hamlet's post?

While I might quibble about psychiatric evaluation (though it certainly couldn't hurt to have a sit down with a therapist), I think your idea of a restraining order is a great idea.

But Harold, Dawkins DOES say that Christians are delusional.

And both Dawkins and Dennet say they are child abusers.

And Dennet does say that religion should be preserved...in a cage.

And what punishment could be servere enough for delusional child abusers?

Would putting them in ZOOS (jail?) be ENOUGH?

But Harold, Dawkins DOES say that Christians are delusional.

I rarely read Dawkins directly, so I have to be careful, but that does sound accurate.

One More Comment -

I'm sure I'm not alone in noticing that every time creationists and their right wing fellow travelers behave in a violent or otherwise morally wrong way, someone tries to "defend" them by quoting or paraphrasing some mildly hyped up snippet from Dawkins or Dennet or some other such figure.

This is stupid for several reasons -

1) It's a false and unfair analogy. Dawkins isn't acting in a venue where violence is being stirred up, and Dawkins isn't perceived as an "authority figure", nor as having supernatural communion with God, by his listeners and readers. He insults, but pragmatically, he doesn't threaten, and that's a major difference.

2) It's irrelevant - even if Dawkins were a terrible person who was trying to stir up violence against innocent people, that would just make him one more terrible person. Irrelevant bad action by Dawkins don't justify independent evil actions by creationists, obviously.

I hope these terrorist threats have been reported to the Dept of Homeland Security and the FBI since they are terrorist crimes and should be thoroughly investigated including using the provisions of the Patriot Act to wiretap to uncover financial supporters of these terror cells, posing as religious organizations. This isn't freedom of speech; this is inciting criminal acts and should be treated as such.

Comment #189737 Posted by Whatever on July 24, 2007 6:22 AM (e) But Harold, Dawkins DOES say that Christians are delusional.

And both Dawkins and Dennet say they are child abusers.

And Dennet does say that religion should be preserved...in a cage.

And what punishment could be servere enough for delusional child abusers? Would putting them in ZOOS (jail?) be ENOUGH?

They are delusional. At least if you accept the common frame of just what a delsion is: A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception.

Christians are pretty darn ignorant, too. They know virtually nothing of the evolution of their religion and wilfully remain ignorant to preserve their beliefs.

From our "Everyone's an editor" department: I think the word you guys are looking for is "deluded." Tho delusional and deluded are arguably synonyms, delusional has come to be a stronger term that implies mental illness or belief in defiance of evidence. You can argue that people who believe in reincarnation are deluded because (you think) their belief is false, but they need not be delusional, especially if their culture believes in reincarnation.

Matt Young -

It's not the word I'm looking for.

You are correct, though, that "deluded" carries no clinical connotations.

Thus, it could indeed be logically acceptable, although in my view pointlessly rude, intolerant, and presumptive, to refer to all people with religious opinions different from one's own as "deluded".

As I've said before, other peoples' private mental lives are not my business, unless I'm asked to share in them.

If someone vocalizes or otherwise behaves in a way that impacts on me, I respond to that.

Declaring myself superior to others because they differ from me on some irrelevant axis is something I try to avoid. Although it is a very mild form of bigotry when not combined with economic or social discrimination, it is still somewhat bigoted. The fact that those to whom I try to show tolerance may express this mild bigotry toward me is not relevant.

It occasionally strikes me that there may be class overtones to the more overgeneralized commentary on "religion" that appear here. It often seems to be presumed that atheists are educated and members of an above average socioeconomic class. This is probably true on average, but not at an individual level. "Religion" is often stereotyped as consisting entirely of fundamentalist monotheism, and that, in turn, is often stereotyped as a characteristic of people with lower amounts of education and resources.

... unbiased and critical ...

Matt Young -

Not meaning to give you a hard time or anything.

I don't believe in reincarnation, I don't think that belief, in isolation, is ever delusional, and I personally wouldn't call it deluded, with some possible extreme exceptions.

It's just common belief that I don't share.

Steviepinhead -

Yep, unbiased and critical.

Funny, you didn't include any examples of me actually being biased or unfair toward Richard Dawkins. That would have strengthened your post. I wonder why you didn't.

Lots of people do make unfair verbal attacks on Dawkins. Actually, he probably wants that. He's a "controversial" author. He's made a lot of good points, but recently he mixes them with hyperbole, exaggeration, and what I subjectively perceive as something that may be just a tad of upper class British snobbery. And to some degree, consciously or unconsciously, he may be aware that he sells more books that way.

Now, I understand that some quite reasonable people see it as terribly, terribly unfair, and an example of persecution, for anyone to even express an idea that could be construed as casting any utterance from Dawkins in anything less than a worshipful light.

Just as others (generally less reasonable) see it as terribly, terribly outrageously unfair to fail to castigate him as virtually demonic.

I don't fall into either of these categories. I bought one of his books, I still have it, and my only complaint was that he pussyfooted around any discussion of molecular biology, even though it was aimed at an educated audience.

This thing is supposed to be a web site dedicated to the discussion of science, science education, and creationist attacks on scientist education. It's not dedicated to propounding the superiority of upper class atheists in the rich countries of the world over everyone who differs from them on any cultural belief or trait. And until the day they kick me off, it won't be.

As it happens, I'm a big proponent of the values endorsed by secular humanism, and I wish people all over the world would embrace them. Yet somehow, I don't see running everybody else down as one of those values.

Sorry if this is a lot more of an earful than you deserve, but every now and then, I have to vent this.

Vent away.

Pinheads are hard to offend.

Pinheads are hard to offend.

It's not dedicated to propounding the superiority of upper class atheists in the rich countries of the world over everyone who differs from them on any cultural belief or trait.

Are you a fan of a certain proto-punk band that came out of Forest Hills in the mid-seventies, or is the name a coincidence (in which case what I just wrote looks like the meaningless ramblings of a madman)?

Harold: As I've said before, other peoples' private mental lives are not my business, unless I'm asked to share in them.

But Harold, Dawkins DOES say that Christians are delusional. And both Dawkins and Dennet say they are child abusers. And Dennet does say that religion should be preserved...in a cage. And what punishment could be servere enough for delusional child abusers? Would putting them in ZOOS (jail?) be ENOUGH?

Got it. I and I'm sure virtually all of us, don't give a rat's ass what other people believe. Wiccans, fundies, atheists, flat earthers, germ theory of disease deniers, etc.. The problem with the lie and violence creationist cults, is that they are attempting to sneak their religious mythology into our childrens schools. They also frequently mention that they would like to overthrow the US government and set up a theocracy. They threaten other groups they don't like a lot, and occasionally kill them. They are attempting very overtly to impose their bizarre world view on the rest of us. If they didn't try to impose their views on everyone else and tell them what to do, who to fall in love with, how many kids to have, whether and when they can get divorced, which god(s) are OK, and on and on, no one would care about them in the least. Let them practice voluntary ignorance and loony, self defeating behaviors. It's not about opposing world views and never has been. It is about one group of cults trying to force the rest of us to do and think what they want. PS: If someone posts dangerous delusional nonsense in public about germs including HIV not causing disease, bicycle helments and seat belts being for wimps, or cigarettes being safe, we have the same right to disagree with them in public. And from a morally higher ground if the facts are available.

Just for the record, tho I think that a belief in a deity or reincarnation is objectively wrong, I did not mean to imply that believers therein are necessarily deluded. It merely seemed to me that delusional was too strong a word and you might have agreed more closely if you had used the weaker form, deluded, instead.

That said, when someone believes a claim that is contrary to fact, then that person is deluded, even if the underlying motivation for the belief is religious.

Hmmm. Let me clarify that, before I get into trouble. I do not know whether a belief in a deity is a delusion. The belief that the earth is 6000 years old is a delusion.

And if teaching creationism and the like is child abuse, as Dawkins and Dennet claim no matter how you spin it, how can that be allowed to go on?

The answer is, it IS a form of abuse -- specifically, betraying kids' trust by lying to them, and thus denying them the education they need to function as responsible adults in a modern society. Just like teaching them that the Earth is flat, or that babies are dropped down the chimney by storks. And, as we've all been saying here from the get-go, it SHOULDN'T be allowed to go on.

Was Dawkins delusional or lying? Certainly not delusional, but possibly deluded, tho those are not the only possibilities. I haven't read Dawkins's book, but I'd say that anyone who thinks that science can or has conclusively disproved supernaturalism is at best mistaken. As I try to show in my own book, all you can do is make a circumstantial case against supernaturalism. The case I make has disproved supernaturalism, especially the belief in a benevolent god, to my satisfaction. That is a far cry from saying it is conclusively disproved, and I think that people who think their case is that good are deluded (but not delusional).

In other words, I think that atheists are most probably right, but they are deluded if they think they have conclusively proved their case. I am not sure if that answers the question, but we are drifting off task, and I do not want to go much farther in this direction.

Chld abuse can include mental abuse. It does not have to be physical.

And if teaching creationism and the like is child abuse, as Dawkins and Dennet claim no matter how you spin it, how can that be allowed to go on?

If they had control, they would have to take steps to stop it...or be complicit in it.

Who ya kiddin?

In other words, I think that atheists are most probably right, but they are deluded if they think they have conclusively proved their case.

I haven't read Dawkins's book, but I'd say that anyone who thinks that science can or has conclusively disproved supernaturalism is at best mistaken...

In other words, I think that atheists are most probably right, but they are deluded if they think they have conclusively proved their case.

Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and the other "new atheists" just aren't concerned about the perhaps meaningless distinction (meaningless in epistemological terms) between agnosticism and theism

One hopes it's clear from this, then, that you're not really in a very good position to assert that Dawkins has asserted "that science can or has conclusively disproved supernaturalism...".

Chld abuse can include mental abuse. It does not have to be physical.

And if teaching creationism and the like is child abuse, as Dawkins and Dennet claim no matter how you spin it, how can that be allowed to go on?

Teaching creationism isn't the primary form of child abuse that religion is guilty of.

Teaching children that there's a hell and that they're going to burn in it for all eternity if they don't submit to God's (read: the denomination of the parent's) authority is most certainly child abuse.