Emmmm something.

JaseBelleVie

No bacon, no alcohol, no music, no dancing, no pre-marital sex, joyless marital sex.

Hell yeah, where do I sign up?

Oh, and cutting your foreskin off. Forgot that.

The reasons to sign up just keep coming flying in, don't they? :P

Nodin

JaseBelleVie wrote: »

No bacon, no alcohol, no music, no dancing, no pre-marital sex, joyless marital sex.

Hell yeah, where do I sign up?

Oh, and cutting your foreskin off. Forgot that.

The reasons to sign up just keep coming flying in, don't they? :P

Actually once you tie the knot, ye can do more or less what ye want and enjoy it too (only exception is anal sex). Compared to strict catholic teaching, they're sex mad hippy deviants in that regard.

El_Duderino 09

Nodin wrote: »

Actually once you tie the knot, ye can do more or less what ye want and enjoy it too (only exception is anal sex). Compared to strict catholic teaching, they're sex mad hippy deviants in that regard.

I'm pretty sure anything except penis in vagina is sodomy. Oral, anal, digital and anything you could classify as foreplay is out. Why do people think sodomy is a synonym for anal?

Pope Bennie said anything that isn't P in the V, with procreation as the intended outcome, is sodomy. PS this is not a direct quote.

They don't resent people enjoying the act of procreation but anything that's not precreation is out. That's all of foreplay out the window.

volchitsa

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Pope Bennie said anything that isn't P in the V, with procreation as the intended outcome, is sodomy. PS this is not a direct quote.

They don't resent people enjoying the act of procreation but anything that's not precreation is out. That's all of foreplay out the window.

I read the other poster (Nodin) as saying that the Muslim attitude to (married) sex is freer than the Catholic one. So what Benedict said wouldn't matter to them.

I'm actually replying because I think it's worth pointing out that the claim that Muslims have a "better" attitude to sex than Christians is only true for those of the male persuasion. It really isn't the case for women, who for example have to accept anything their husband wants, at any time. No question of rape within marriage if you're a Muslim woman, in fact beating a woman with a stick for refusing sex is perfectly acceptable, theologically. And then there's the tradition of FGM in many Muslim communities, which is accepted if not positively encouraged by some of the official teachings.

Nodin

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure anything except penis in vagina is sodomy. Oral, anal, digital and anything you could classify as foreplay is out. Why do people think sodomy is a synonym for anal?

Pope Bennie said anything that isn't P in the V, with procreation as the intended outcome, is sodomy. PS this is not a direct quote.

They don't resent people enjoying the act of procreation but anything that's not precreation is out. That's all of foreplay out the window.

O yeah "pleasure for pleasures sake" is apparently a complete no-no. Jaysus knows where they got the notion from either. Bears no relation to normal human interaction at all.

Alexis Sanchez

Nodin wrote: »

Actually once you tie the knot, ye can do more or less what ye want and enjoy it too (only exception is anal sex). Compared to strict catholic teaching, they're sex mad hippy deviants in that regard.

Aye, in some Muslim countries, you can even get it on with a child as long as you're married. Yet Nodin here gets upset when people attack Islam, despite Islam being the reason why child marriages are acceptable in some Muslim states.

Pawwed Rig

volchitsa wrote: »

No question of rape within marriage if you're a Muslim woman.

There was no rape within marriage here until relatively recently so we are not too far ahead of many of these countries.

volchitsa wrote: »

And then there's the tradition of FGM in many Muslim communities, which is accepted if not positively encouraged by some of the official teachings.

Not forgetting male genital mutilation.

Religion as a whole tends to look upon women as property and that is reflected by the practises of its advocates. Luckily here we are so ala carte with our religious beliefs that we just ignore some of the loony parts and get on with it.

El_Duderino 09

volchitsa wrote: »

I read the other poster (Nodin) as saying that the Muslim attitude to (married) sex is freer than the Catholic one. So what Benedict said wouldn't matter to them.

I didn't know that about muslims. It's fairly unlikely but there's no guessing what the religious will consider OK and what's a mortal sin.

Nodin

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

Aye, in some Muslim countries, you can even get it on with a child as long as you're married. Yet Nodin here gets upset when people attack Islam, despite Islam being the reason why child marriages are acceptable in some Muslim states.

I get upset when people attack Islam? News to me.

You'll find the child marriage tends to go on where child marriage pre-dates islam as a cultural practice and is justified post facto with Islam. It also happens in non-Islamic cultures.

Alexis Sanchez

Nodin wrote: »

I get upset when people attack Islam? News to me.

Is it really? You accuse people of being Islamaphobes and criticizing people whom suggest that "Islam is evil". I've seen you, on several occasions, defend Islam.

Defending Muslims is fine because generalizations are the opinions of the stupid, but you get your knickers in a twist when people blame Islam for violence that is carried out by Muslims.

Tell me something: do you agree or disagree with Islamaphobia?

You'll find the child marriage tends to go on where child marriage pre-dates islam as a cultural practice and is justified post facto with Islam.

Did the Zoroastrians practice paedophilia? They were the dominant cult in the region, until Mohammad and his band of paedophile-sympathizers starting proselytizing their abhorrent beliefs across the Middle East. If Mohammad was killed, the Zoroastrians may still be the dominant cult in the region and therefore, child marriages wouldn't be so prevalent; although, the homophobia could still be practiced.

The fact is, Nodin, when a religion instructs ts followers to to do something that we, in the West, consider savage, there will always be heavily indoctrinated morons who will practice this in the real world; hence the reason why Islam is dangerous.

It also happens in non-Islamic cultures.

1. This is whataboutery. A fallacy you liberals frequently fall victim of when trying to defend Islam.

2. Paedophila occurring in non-Islamic countries/cultures does not negate it happening in Muslims countries/cultures.

3. Name a non-Muslim country where there is no age of marriage (marry at any age) or where the age of marriage is listed as "puberty"?

P.S.: Immigration from countries/cultures that practice child marriages, or ill-treatment of women in general, needs to be limited in the EU. The UK's Labour governments of the past have allowed in too many unskilled immigrants and that led to grooming gangs across the UK. The same will happen here if you Shinners get into power.

Brian Shanahan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure anything except penis in vagina is sodomy. Oral, anal, digital and anything you could classify as foreplay is out. Why do people think sodomy is a synonym for anal?

Even the rcc's favourite, the rhythm method of "birth control" is out. Remember Onan was smitten by god for pulling out of his sister in law at the last second.

El_Duderino 09

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Even the rcc's favourite, the rhythm method of "birth control" is out. Remember Onan was smitten by god for pulling out of his sister in law at the last second.

I've always wondered about Onan. Was he smitten for spilling his seed or for disobeying gods direct order to get his sister in law pregnant? In that story it looks like a very specific case of disobeying a direct order so it's not a great time to infer a general principal about spilling seed.

Brian Shanahan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I've always wondered about Onan. Was he smitten for spilling his seed or for disobeying gods direct order to get his sister in law pregnant? In that story it looks like a very specific case of disobeying a direct order so it's not a great time to infer a general principal about spilling seed.

He was told by god to get it on with her to begat a child, and that's what the punishment was for, spilling the seed stopped the begatting thus Onan was smitten.

Of course there is another possible reason for the smiting, and that is god was the kind of person who liked sitting in the corner and watching, all the while rubbing his palms off his thighs, and because Onan didn't give the full performance god was annoyed.

El_Duderino 09

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

He was told by god to get it on with her to begat a child, and that's what the punishment was for, spilling the seed stopped the begatting thus Onan was smitten.

Of course there is another possible reason for the smiting, and that is god was the kind of person who liked sitting in the corner and watching, all the while rubbing his palms off his thighs, and because Onan didn't give the full performance god was annoyed.

Yeah I'd agree with that. It's sometimes used by religious folk as a prohibition on spilling seed anywhere except in the vagina such as in a condom or a tissue or anywhere else that can't cause pregnancy.

No to condoms and yes to natural contraception is a fairly mixed up message

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

You'll find the child marriage tends to go on where child marriage pre-dates islam as a cultural practice and is justified post facto with Islam.

Is there any evidence of that?

Only I know Hindus who claim that child marriage was pretty much unknown in ancient Hinduism, and only became accepted something over 1000 years ago, in direct response to the early Muslim invasions, as a way of protecting daughters form being taken as concubines, much as ISIS are now doing (and which they justify in exactly the same way, ie as being a Muslim practice from the very earliest times of Islam).

Hinduism being so ancient, it should be pretty easy to prove your claim if there is anything to it, since even if the practice is as old as Islam itself, that leaves at least 1000 years before that again, maybe more.

EDIT: I found this in Wikipedia (I've never actually checked this out before) :

Most religions, over history, influenced the marriageable age. For example, Christian ecclesiastical law forbade marriage of a girl before the age of puberty. Hindu vedic scriptures mandated the age of a girl's marriage to be adulthood which they defined as three years after the onset of puberty. Jewish scholars and rabbis strongly discouraged marriages before the onset of puberty. In contrast, some Islamic marriage practices have permitted marriage of girls below the age of 10, because Shariat law is based in part on the life and practices of Muhammad, the Prophet, as described in part in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. The Prophet married Aisha, his third wife, when she was about age six, and consummated the marriage when she was about age nine.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage

It seems to disprove your allegation.

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

Is there any evidence of that?

Only I know Hindus who claim that child marriage was pretty much unknown in ancient Hinduism, and only became accepted something over 1000 years ago, in direct response to the early Muslim invasions, as a way of protecting daughters form being taken as concubines, much as ISIS are now doing (and which they justify in exactly the same way, ie as being a Muslim practice from the very earliest times of Islam).

Hinduism being so ancient, it should be pretty easy to prove your claim if there is anything to it, since even if the practice is as old as Islam itself, that leaves at least 1000 years before that again, maybe more.

Well it still goes on.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/child-marriage/india/

You'll note a few countries there that have never seen a muslim invasion....except perhaps described on a message board.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/where-does-it-happen/

Nodin

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

............

Tell me something: do you agree or disagree with Islamaphobia?
.

I disagree with it, and sectarianism generally.

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

............
Did the Zoroastrians practice paedophilia? They were the dominant cult in the region, until Mohammad and his band of paedophile-sympathizers starting proselytizing their abhorrent beliefs across the Middle East. If Mohammad was killed, the Zoroastrians may still be the dominant cult in the region and therefore, child marriages wouldn't be so prevalent; although, the homophobia could still be practiced.
.

You realise that the middle east is not the main area where child marriage is practiced.....? Doesn't suggest a bit of a hole in yer plot there, does it?

Alexis Sanchez wrote:

1. This is whataboutery. A fallacy you liberals ............

'........from the safety of your ivory towers.......'.

Alexis Sanchez wrote:

2. Paedophila occurring in non-Islamic countries/cultures does not negate it happening in Muslims countries/cultures.

I'm unaware that I, or anyone else stated that.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

Well it still goes on.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/child-marriage/india/

You'll note a few countries there that have never seen a muslim invasion....except perhaps described on a message board.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/where-does-it-happen/

The fact that some other countries may also practice child marriage doesn't make it any more acceptable for a particular religion to condone it, though, does it?

And if it's exact that any of the surrounding religions really began the practice as a result of Islam (even if that were only because they looked at it and thought it was a great idea to copy from them!) that would still, IMO, be evidence that there is a specific problem with Islam. Other countries and/or other religions may also now have a similar problem, but the religion(s) which condone it are (again IMO) a particular problem because of the unfortunate habit religions have of requiring that anything they teach be treated with respect just because it's religious.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

Well it still goes on.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/child-marriage/india/

You'll note a few countries there that have never seen a muslim invasion....except perhaps described on a message board.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/where-does-it-happen/

Howeve, from your link, it's noticeable that if you look at the list of countries with the largest number of child marriages, countries with large Muslim populations are by far the greatest number.

Also, those lists are too vague : there is a huge difference between marrying off a prepubertal child of 8 or 10, and marrying at 15: both are bad for the child concerned, in terms of education etc - but only the first is actual child abuse.

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

The fact that some other countries may also practice child marriage doesn't make it any more acceptable for a particular religion to condone it, though, does it?.

Not at all. It's no reason to pretend it's unique to them either though, as that's an assumption that could easily be made reading some people's posts.

volchitsa wrote: »

And if it's exact that any of the surrounding religions really began the practice as a result of Islam (even if that were only because they looked at it and thought it was a great idea to copy from them!) that would still, IMO, be evidence that there is a specific problem with Islam. Other countries and/or other religions may also now have a similar problem, but the religion(s) which condone it are (again IMO) a particular problem because of the unfortunate habit religions have of requiring that anything they teach be treated with respect just because it's religious.

That would not seem to be the case. There may be additional difficulties eradicating the practice where the Koran is cited as justification, but child marriage per se seems to be driven by other factors.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

Not at all. It's no reason to pretend it's unique to them either though, as that's an assumption that could easily be made reading some people's posts.

That would not seem to be the case. There may be additional difficulties eradicating the practice where the Koran is cited as justification, but child marriage per se seems to be driven by other factors.

We're a bit off topic, so this may not be the place, but I do see a particular problem where a religion actually condones a practice. Any religion, and any practice. Only the thing is, Islam does tend to have a worrying tendency to come up with official or semi-official justifications for various kinds of abuses that other religions are at worst, silent about. Wife beating is another one - name one other widespread religion that specifies what size of stick one may beat one's wife with?

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

We're a bit off topic, so this may not be the place, but I do see a particular problem where a religion actually condones a practice. Any religion, and any practice. Only the thing is, Islam does tend to have a worrying tendency to come up with official or semi-official justifications for various kinds of abuses that other religions are at worst, silent about. Wife beating is another one - name one other widespread religion that specifies what size of stick one may beat one's wife with?

No, but I'm fairly sure the Vedic scriptures somewhere advocate beating with a stick (or the hand, should you have left the stick at home, presumably). One of the Upanishads, I think.

It is indeed a very specific, legalistic sort of religion though, yes.

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

Howeve, from your link, it's noticeable that if you look at the list of countries with the largest number of child marriages, countries with large Muslim populations are by far the greatest number.

Also, those lists are too vague : there is a huge difference between marrying off a prepubertal child of 8 or 10, and marrying at 15: both are bad for the child concerned, in terms of education etc - but only the first is actual child abuse.

Indeed, however its notable that the "heartland" or area of origin of Islam is not present in that list. Again - other factors seem to be at play.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

No, but I'm fairly sure the Vedic scriptures somewhere advocate beating with a stick (or the hand, should you have left the stick at home, presumably). One of the Upanishads, I think.

It is indeed a very specific, legalistic sort of religion though, yes.

Well beyond my knowledge of Hinduism, but I'd suggest that this is either a valid point about Hinduism and wife beating, or the sort of unrelated oddity that exists with a religion that has existed for so long - like the ban on mixed threads in the bible for example. It all depends on whether that verse is actually quoted by any well-known Hindu teachers today as justification for wife beating or not.

Because we know that not only is the wife beating regularly justified using the Qu'ran, it's actually very controversial in Islam to claim that wife beating might not be justifiable.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

Indeed, however its notable that the "heartland" or area of origin of Islam is not present in that list. Again - other factors seem to be at play.

I hadn't noticed that. In that case, I think you've just disproven your own point, because child marriage certainly does happen in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, so if they don't appear in that link, it's the link that's unreliable.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/12/26/saudi-arabia-grand-mufti-nothing-wrong-with-child-brides/

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/19/rights-group-lawfailingtoprotectchildbrides.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/08/saudi-arabia-child-brides-marriage

silverharp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYJOeUuAZpA

shruikan2553

The creativity of the mod is a bit lacking from the title :P

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

I hadn't noticed that. In that case, I think you've just disproven your own point, because child marriage certainly does happen in Saudi Arabia and Yemen,...................

Where and when did I say they didn't? The link rates the most prolific offenders. Evidently these exist outside the middle east.

Nodin

silverharp wrote: »

.................................

While such objectionable views doubtless exist, Memri are an unreliable source.

silverharp

Nodin wrote: »

While such objectionable views doubtless exist, Memri are an unreliable source.

Im sure it has a bias , but its still useful to hear the views being expressed in their middle East media as opposed to polished views made available to western media.

Nodin

silverharp wrote: »

Im sure it has a bias , but its still useful to hear the views being expressed in their middle East media as opposed to polished views made available to western media.

.....as its a biased source its carefully selected alleged views being presented (free of charge, isn't that nice) to western media. Not much of an improvement.

ScumLord

Nodin wrote: »

O yeah "pleasure for pleasures sake" is apparently a complete no-no. Jaysus knows where they got the notion from either. Bears no relation to normal human interaction at all.

Some wackjob popes with mommy issues.

silverharp

Nodin wrote: »

.....as its a biased source its carefully selected alleged views being presented (free of charge, isn't that nice) to western media. Not much of an improvement.

you could say the same of Rightwing Watch or Fox News :pac:. I have seen some interesting interviews, some being actual debates where you have someone with a more reasonable position debating someone with a looper position. Muslim versions of Ken Ham are worth hearing about just to get an idea what extremists Islamic positions are.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

Where and when did I say they didn't? The link rates the most prolific offenders. Evidently these exist outside the middle east.

The majority are Muslim countries, or with large Muslim communities all the same, and there really isn't enough detail there to be able to draw the conclusion from it that you do, that it isn't an issue in "the Muslim heartland" : are those statistics even reliable, for example, given that SA doesn't even have a minimum legal age of marriage?

Also, is the problem of child marriage the same in place in Central America where few children get more than primary school education and where it is usual for both boys and girls to marry at 15, compared to a country where 8 year olds are married to 50 year olds, as in Yemen? I think those are very different situations, yet that link doesn't appear to distinguish between them.

Anyway, my main point was that Islam is more or less unique in that the religion itself specifically condones child marriage, which makes it very difficult for there to be any effective child protection in Saudi Arabia : those who are against any age limit at all can, and do, claim that the very idea of such legislation setting out a minimum age is anti-Islam. No other major religion makes such a claim.

ScumLord

volchitsa wrote: »

Anyway, my main point was that Islam is more or less unique in that the religion itself specifically condones child marriage, which makes it very difficult for there to be any effective child protection in Saudi Arabia :

I think Islam is just one of the only religions still holding onto that tradition. The fact is in the past childbirth was very risky and women had a better chance of survival the younger they gave birth. With no prolonged education there was no reason for people to wait to get married either, they had to settle into work and raising a family pretty young because they had pretty much nothing else to do with their lives.



There's also the fact that Mary probably would have been a very young teenage girl when god got her pregnant with himself.

Nodin

silverharp wrote: »

you could say the same of Rightwing Watch or Fox News :pac:. I have seen some interesting interviews, some being actual debates where you have someone with a more reasonable position debating someone with a looper position. Muslim versions of Ken Ham are worth hearing about just to get an idea what extremists Islamic positions are.

O I know they exist, but I have a particular problem with anything sourced via memri, as its essentially a propaganda unit in support of a fairly vile agenda. There's enough demonisation in the world without some shower dedicated to it getting in on the act.

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

The majority are Muslim countries, or with large Muslim communities all the same, and there really isn't enough detail there to be able to draw the conclusion from it that you do, that it isn't an issue in "the Muslim heartland" : are those statistics even reliable, for example, given that SA doesn't even have a minimum legal age of marriage?

Also, is the problem of child marriage the same in place in Central America where few children get more than primary school education and where it is usual for both boys and girls to marry at 15, compared to a country where 8 year olds are married to 50 year olds, as in Yemen? I think those are very different situations, yet that link doesn't appear to distinguish between them..

They count both, and again, the middle east would not seem to be at the heart of it.

silverharp

Nodin wrote: »

O I know they exist, but I have a particular problem with anything sourced via memri, as its essentially a propaganda unit in support of a fairly vile agenda. There's enough demonisation in the world without some shower dedicated to it getting in on the act.

Its a resource . I tend to watch them when a commentator refers to them in making a point. I gather its Israeli owned or financed, it shouldn't really matter , its up to anyone else to question their editing or translation.

volchitsa

ScumLord wrote: »

I think Islam is just one of the only religions still holding onto that tradition.

Umm, that's my point really, the fact that Islam still does hold onto the tradition, and that people trying to make it illegal in Islamic countries are liable to find themselves accused of unislamic behaviour. That's a big difference with other cultures where girls marry young, such as travelers - there's no religious taboo on criticizing that tradition. (And yes, I know any criticism of cultural traditions is sometimes displeasing, but religious beliefs have special protection that other beliefs don't usually benefit from. The blasphemy law here for example. Conscience clauses.)

There's also the fact that Mary probably would have been a very young teenage girl when god got her pregnant with himself.

if that were quoted as a reason not to allow legislation to set an age of consent or marriage, that would be a good point. But it isn't, unlike the age Aisha was married at.

ScumLord

volchitsa wrote: »

Umm, that's my point really, the fact that Islam still does hold onto the tradition, and that people trying to make it illegal in Islamic countries are liable to find themselves accused of unislamic behaviour. That's a big difference with other cultures where girls marry young, such as travelers - there's no religious taboo on criticizing that tradition.

I think the environmental reasons why people married young are still there in many Islamic countries. Outside of the major cities there's very little for people to do bar get married and have children. They have very little in the way of education prospects and not so many job opportunities.

I think we can see in the cities that women do enjoy a slightly better standard of life and have slightly more freedoms. These countries are going through social change it's just they have a lot of catching up to do. There does seem to be a tipping point and these countries haven't reached that point yet.

We in the west have had a head start on these places, I don't think we can criticize them when we were almost as bad a generation ago and it took a lot of external influence to change us.

volchitsa

ScumLord wrote: »

I think the environmental reasons why people married young are still there in many Islamic countries. Outside of the major cities there's very little for people to do bar get married and have children. They have very little in the way of education prospects and not so many job opportunities.

I think we can see in the cities that women do enjoy a slightly better standard of life and have slightly more freedoms. These countries are going through social change it's just they have a lot of catching up to do. There does seem to be a tipping point and these countries haven't reached that point yet.

We in the west have had a head start on these places, I don't think we can criticize them when we were almost as bad a generation ago and it took a lot of external influence to change us.

You misunderstand me. I'm not criticizing anyone for deciding to get married and have children, I'm criticizing a religion that teaches people it's wrong to tell parents they possibly shouldn't marry off their eight-year-olds as third or fourth wives to old men.

Far be it from me to defend the Catholic Church, but I don't think it's all relative either - Ireland was bad enough in many ways, but child abuse was never officially taught as an acceptable thing to do. Small mercy perhaps, but it made a huge difference once people finally started speaking out all the same - because it was clear that the catholic church could not point to anything that allowed child abuse. Unlike Islam, where Aisha was married off at 6, and raped at 9. Because it was rape.

Anyway, I've had enough of this, I find it quite upsetting that so manypeople seem to care so little that a religion that we are asked to respect actually condones child sex abuse as part of its official teachings, and that people are too "polite" to say that this is just not acceptable.

And no, the direction is the wrong way, unfortunately. Afghanistan and Iran were far more westernized in the 60s and 70s. Saudi Arabia was quite a relaxed place until the assault on the Grand Mosque in, I think, 1979 or 80. I visited Turkey in 1990 and 2008 - the change was shocking. And not in a good way.

ScumLord

volchitsa wrote: »

You misunderstand me. I'm not criticizing anyone for deciding to get married and have children, I'm criticizing a religion that teaches people it's wrong to tell parents they possibly shouldn't marry off their eight-year-olds as third or fourth wives to old men.

I think you're taking it all out of context and judging people by your own circumstances. As far as I was aware they marry off young children but that it's more of a promise that the girl will marry when she's of a suitable age. I know there are stories of men marrying and consummating marriages to prepubescent girls but is that the norm or an extreme example?

I'm sure the parents are also trying to do the best thing by their children. Unfortunately being married to a successful man is the best a girl can hope for in some areas and the fact remains they have little other options open to them.

Far be it from me to defend the Catholic Church, but I don't think it's all relative either - Ireland was bad enough in many ways, but child abuse was never officially taught as an acceptable thing to do. Small mercy perhaps, but it made a huge difference once people finally started speaking out all the same - because it was clear that the catholic church could not point to anything that allowed child abuse. Unlike Islam, where Aisha was married off at 6, and raped at 9. Because it was rape.

The same thing happened all over Europe, women getting to choose who they married once they were old enough to understand their decision is a relatively new thing. Just look at royalty, the people with the most choice in Europe were forced into political promissory marriages while they were still children. So what Islamic countries are doing isn't unusual in human society, it's just backwards.

Anyway, I've had enough of this, I find it quite upsetting that so manypeople seem to care so little that a religion that we are asked to respect actually condones child sex abuse as part of its official teachings, and that people are too "polite" to say that this is just not acceptable.

I don't think anyones saying it's acceptable by our standards, what we're pointing out is that it's a completely different society, with completely different environmental influences. we can't realistically expect and entire culture to change instantly just because we found a better way and have the means to carry it out. Every human society has a social structure and those structures take a long time to change if you want to avoid anarchy and turmoil.

Even at the slow pace it's happening (we went through revolutions and wars to get where we are today) it's causing all kinds of social problems and that is going to continue as people settle into a new way of life. We just can't expect it to happen in a timely fashion.

volchitsa

ScumLord wrote: »

I think you're taking it all out of context and judging people by your own circumstances. As far as I was aware they marry off young children but that it's more of a promise that the girl will marry when she's of a suitable age. I know there are stories of men marrying and consummating marriages to prepubescent girls but is that the norm or an extreme example?

For the girls it happens to, it doesn't matter how rare it is, the problems that they have nowhere to turn because their own country allows parents to choose to do this because of their religion. A religion which doesn't accept any criticism of anything it's prophet did. So because he married a 6 year old, it's unacceptable to tell parents they shouldn't do the same, if they want to. If we had religion-sanctioned child abuse here, there'd be plenty of people ready to say it was not good enough.

I'm sure the parents are also trying to do the best thing by their children. Unfortunately being married to a successful man is the best a girl can hope for in some areas and the fact remains they have little other options open to them.

The same thing happened all over Europe, women getting to choose who they married once they were old enough to understand their decision is a relatively new thing. Just look at royalty, the people with the most choice in Europe were forced into political promissory marriages while they were still children. So what Islamic countries are doing isn't unusual in human society, it's just backwards.

It's the backwards bit that bothers me, and the fact that it's not disappearing, because it is religiously based.

I don't think anyones saying it's acceptable by our standards, what we're pointing out is that it's a completely different society, with completely different environmental influences. we can't realistically expect and entire culture to change instantly just because we found a better way and have the means to carry it out. Every human society has a social structure and those structures take a long time to change if you want to avoid anarchy and turmoil.

Even at the slow pace it's happening (we went through revolutions and wars to get where we are today) it's causing all kinds of social problems and that is going to continue as people settle into a new way of life. We just can't expect it to happen in a timely fashion.

Is there any evidence that it's becoming more or less acceptable in any of the Muslim societies? I'd suggest that ISIS-ISIL shows that if anything it's becoming more common not less.

It's just not true that places like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are becoming more like us, their social development is exactly the other direction. Anyway, my real point is that the problem of Islam condoning these practices is a powerful brake on change, which means it's just not true to suppose that as they develop their economy they will change their practices. There's little evidence of that happening - quite the opposite : Saudi Arabia is far richer than us.

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

For the girls it happens to, it doesn't matter how rare it is, ..............

But it does rather undermines the notion that its part of mainstream muslim life, which what, I think, we're trying to get at. There's no denying what's in the Koran, but that doesn't mean that the majority of muslims take it as a directive to have sex with underage children.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

But it does rather undermines the notion that its part of mainstream muslim life, which what, I think, we're trying to get at. There's no denying what's in the Koran, but that doesn't mean that the majority of muslims take it as a directive to have sex with underage children.

That's good because I don't think I ever said that, did I?

BlaasForRafa

Nodin wrote: »

There's no denying what's in the Koran, but that doesn't mean that the majority of muslims take it as a directive to have sex with underage children.

But does it inhibit them from condemning it or legislating against it(in countries that practice sharia law)?

volchitsa

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

But does it inhibit them from condemning it or legislating against it(in countries that practice sharia law)?

Important point here : there are 2 aspects to sharia law, family law, which is the norm to varying extents in almost all countries where Islam is the majority religion, and criminal law which is much less common. So your question is not only about Iran, Saudi Arabia or a few other extremist places, it's relevant in Indonesia, the North African countries, South Asia, just about everywhere really.

A telling illustration is that when the British tried to ban child marriage in India, before independence, they had to bring in an exemption for Muslims, because it was felt their religion didnt allow it to be banned. So they banned child marriage for Hindus, Sikhs etc, but not for Muslims.

It still doesn't : in India Muslim personal law allows marriage at an age where other Indian citizens would be in breach of the law on the age of consent : http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/muslim-groups-oppose-ban-on-child-marriage/article5155367.ece

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

That's good because I don't think I ever said that, did I?

Your lack of caveats certainly would give that impression.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

Your lack of caveats certainly would give that impression.

No. You're inventing it, and I'm going to ask you to put up a quote of mine that suggests that the majority of Muslims have sex with underage children. And when you can't find any, I want an apology.

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

No. You're inventing it, and I'm going to ask you to put up a quote of mine that suggests that the majority of Muslims have sex with underage children. And when you can't find any, I want an apology.

It's the impression you give

"Far be it from me to defend the Catholic Church, but I don't think it's all relative either - Ireland was bad enough in many ways, but child abuse was never officially taught as an acceptable thing to do. Small mercy perhaps, but it made a huge difference once people finally started speaking out all the same - because it was clear that the catholic church could not point to anything that allowed child abuse. Unlike Islam, where Aisha was married off at 6, and raped at 9. Because it was rape.

Anyway, I've had enough of this, I find it quite upsetting that so manypeople seem to care so little that a religion that we are asked to respect actually condones child sex abuse as part of its official teachings, and that people are too "polite" to say that this is just not acceptable."

...in conjunction with posts 18 and 19 and the first paragraph of post 34.

I'd suggest reading this
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-david-liepert/islamic-pedophelia_b_814332.html
and contemplating the fact that in the largest muslim country - Indonesia - the law regards marital age is the same as in Britain, save that parental consent is required from ages 16-18 in Britain, while its 16-21 in Indonesia.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

It's the impression you give

"Far be it from me to defend the Catholic Church, but I don't think it's all relative either - Ireland was bad enough in many ways, but child abuse was never officially taught as an acceptable thing to do. Small mercy perhaps, but it made a huge difference once people finally started speaking out all the same - because it was clear that the catholic church could not point to anything that allowed child abuse. Unlike Islam, where Aisha was married off at 6, and raped at 9. Because it was rape.

Anyway, I've had enough of this, I find it quite upsetting that so manypeople seem to care so little that a religion that we are asked to respect actually condones child sex abuse as part of its official teachings, and that people are too "polite" to say that this is just not acceptable."

...in conjunction with posts 18 and 19 and the first paragraph of post 34.

I'd suggest reading this
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-david-liepert/islamic-pedophelia_b_814332.html
and contemplating the fact that in the largest muslim country - Indonesia - the law regards marital age is the same as in Britain, save that parental consent is required from ages 16-18 in Britain, while its 16-21 in Indonesia.

Nothing there implies that the majority of Muslims have sex with underage children - which is what you're claiming I've said.

My point is that for those paedophiles who happen to be Muslim, and who are no more numerous than paedophiles of other religions or none, they have a particular protection that none of the others do, which is that religious Muslims can't criticise anything Mohammed did, and therefore are often unwilling to legislate for a minimum age of consent for girls.

That's a genuine social problem made worse by Islam, and I stand by that - but it still doesn't mean that the majority of Muslims, or anything like it, are paedophiles. Just that legislation in Muslim countries tends not to punish paedophiles as long as they marry their victims before they rape them.

I'm also entirely unconvinced that the requirement for parental consent is a protection, it's just more Sharia law where children, especially girls, are the property of someone. Father or husband.

Edit : the article you linked to, by a Canadian convert, clearly accepts that most Muslims think that Aisha was 6 or 9, and that the fact of this widespread belief is a danger to young girls in Muslim countries. which is exactly what I've been saying.

He proves my point completely because he obviously doesn't expect anyone to accept that it would be child abuse if she were 6, he feels he can only win his case by proving that the story itself is false and that she was older. Personally, I don't care whether it's true or not, I care that people accept it.