The first example has a faulty assumption. *Assuming* the analogy is true, then it wouldn't be the parent's fault, no. Putting this into the context of e.g. religious upbringing, this assumes the parent has interpreted and taught that religion correctly, which a great many do not (as they don't interpret it correctly, so how can they teach it correctly?). The actions of many adult religious believers do not contradict what they have been brought up with - in cases where it *does*, then I agree.
"And there you have it. We have a philosophical disagreement on the extent of individual vs. group agency. No sense in continuing this branch of the discussion further. We'll have to agree to disagree."
Yes and no - the thing is, no matter whether we agree or not on individual vs group agency, the results of misinterpreted and maliciously interpreted religious belief (or any other system of thought) remains there, and no reasonable argument could accept that no entity is responsible. Still, it is nonetheless something that depends a great deal on the level of control that group or individual has, and that would likely be a very lengthy discussion in and of itself.
I should say that group agency, in this case - it can only be argued when a misinterpretation is very easy to do and could have been avoided by writing the text better. For example, if a secular society writes a vague and ambiguous (or bad) law and it results in many crimes going unpunished or innocents being imprisoned, that would be a failing of secular society in the same way (and of course, that has often happened). On the other side, if someone interprets a law in a ridiculous or farfetched way (religious, secular or otherwise) it cannot be argued that the religion or secular society is at fault for that, as no solution was possible. Anyhow, it is fine for us to leave that subject alone if you prefer, as it is rather a long one.
"That's not precisely correct. The laws never changed. What changed was that the sharia courts acknowledged that they had available to them other punishments that they had not chosen to use in the past."
Yes, you're right. This is what I was referring to; the laws in writing did not change, but the laws in practice changed - which amounts to the same thing in moral terms. Those responsible for deciding these punishments only decided lesser punishments were suddenly okay because of the reasons given earlier such as politics, not because Islam itself or their interpretations of it had changed.
"Again, not precisely correct. Prohibiting women from driving anything (buggies, cars, anything) is not and had never been part of Islamic law. The driving prohibition was a derived interpretation of other parts of the law unique to the Arabian religious history. (Also, it had nothing to do with world opinion. It had entirely to do with Mohammad bin Salman's desire to increase Arabian GDP by deploying the entirety of its workforce.)"
Yes, most of this I agree with, and the first statement is certainly true. I would say that world opinion had *something* to do with it; Arabian GDP and economic influence does not depend on the workforce as much as other countries do, given its oil resources, but I certainly can't contest that it could have been part of the reason. Either way - whoever is correct about the exact reasons for this, I think it can be agreed that the change did not come from Saudi government changing its views on Islam or Islamic law.
"It is what it is."
Very much so - it is awareness of this fact I wish for religious people to acknowledge, as many do not, and it is this lack of acknowledgement that drives unquestioning faith in religious belief without seeing any downsides. It is all too common for religious believers of any religion to claim greatness in all good things they see in their religion, and turn a wilfully blind eye to anything else. Not all followers, of course - but many.
"That works both ways."
It does not, at least here. It would if I was using my *own* idea of intolerance, but I am not. That being said, I think your objection there may have been due to miscommunication earlier in which 'intolerance' was implied or perceived to include people who simply disagreed, which wouldn't be correct.
"I think you'd find that those who are willing to renounce their religion *publicaly* are generally educated and have resources."
Yes, this is very true. Not all however renounce it on their own terms - people can be labelled as nonbelievers, 'exposed' as nonbelievers by others, and so forth. Those who choose it on their own terms naturally wouldn't publically renounce it in such countries until after leaving in any case, but your point stands.
As a small side note, I think in hindsight that the word 'complicit' on its own may have been too vague in the article. I have expanded that paragraph to ensure that it is not seen to imply condemning Muslims or other religious believers as a whole.
