Real Child Abuse

Actually, I can easily think of better candidates. Like Pearl Fernandez:

When paramedics arrived at the Palmdale home of Fernandez last Wednesday, they found the boy barely breathing and broken. His “skull was cracked, three ribs were broken and his skin was bruised and burned,” reports the L.A. Times. “He had BB pellets embedded in his lung and groin. Two teeth were knocked out of his mouth.” He died at the hospital Friday. His mother, 29-year-old Pearl Fernandez, told paramedics his injuries were the result of self-mutilation.

It doesn’t look like Pearl was too interested in teaching the Bible to her son, as she seemed much more involved in a secular, hedonistic lifestyle:

Fernandez had previously written a note contemplating suicide, his teacher told authorities he appeared bruised and battered at school, bruises from BB pellets were evident on his face, his therapist submitted a complaint in late March that the boy had been forced to perform oral sex on a relative and a referral to conduct an investigation into child abuse at the home lingered two months past deadline.[….]
Pearl also told social workers of her history of gang involvement, drug use and mental problems. Another complaint surfaced in 2007 that she was starving one of her daughters and threatened to break the girl’s jaw for crying. She also spent time in jail in Texas for using a weapon in a reckless manner.

Dawkins only cares about child “abuse” if the “abuse” involves teaching the child religion. But when it comes to children being beaten, tortured, and killed by their parents’ secular lifestyle, Dawkins the Child Advocate has never spoken out. Gee, do you think his concern for “the children” is about as sincere as his demand for evidence?

This entry was posted in New Atheism, Richard Dawkins and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Real Child Abuse

  1. The Deuce says:

    How about murdering toddlers in cold blood, as Dawkins’ buddy Peter Singer advocates? Does that count? Clearly not, otherwise Dawkins would speak up about it rather than palling around with an advocate for child abuse and opining about how that child abuser was his moral superior for not eating meat. In fact, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that Dawkins, for all his concern trolling about “child abuse,” is just fine and dandy with the idea of toddler-murder that Singer advocates.

  2. TFBW says:

    Gee, do you think his concern for “the children” is about as sincere as his demand for evidence?

    Let’s play a game of “inference to the best explanation”, shall we? Here are two possible explanations. Which one is a better match for the known facts?

    1. Dawkins is deeply concerned for the welfare of children.
    2. Dawkins is passionately hateful towards those who teach religion to children.

    They aren’t mutually exclusive, but I tend to think that one has more explanatory value than the other.

  3. ingx24 says:

    Of course, there’s no reason why Dawkins should even care that children are being abused. By his own worldview (or at least the worldview of his fellow Gnu, Dennett, which he seems to support), children are just piles of chemicals without any real feelings or consciousness at all (except in the behavioral/functional sense that they react to stimuli in certain ways), so who cares?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.