# 8-year-old girl's marriage ruled legal



## Big Don (Apr 12, 2009)

*8-year-old girl's marriage ruled legal*

  Published: April 12, 2009 at 7:40 AM
UPI/CNN EXCERPT:
 ONAIZA, Saudi Arabia, April 12 (UPI) -- A Saudi Arabian judge has refused to overturn a ruling that declared the arranged marriage of an 8-year-old girl to a 47-year-old man legal, a relative says.

 The judge, Sheikh Habib Habib, ruled for the second time Saturday in Onaiza that the girl's marriage to a friend of her father's was legal and binding. He said the child wife could file for divorce once she reached puberty, CNN reported.END EXCERPT

I do not care if their culture considers this OK. Any culture that condones this is WRONG. 
Forcing an eight year old child to marry is WRONG. The father, and the "Husband" should both be shot.


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 12, 2009)

This is wrong in so many ways and I for one say let them both die a horrible death.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 12, 2009)

Agreed that it is wrong. Just the same as the Afghan government passed a law where it is legal for the husband to rape the wife if she says no to sex. 

Thing is... it's how THEY live over THERE and not how WE over HERE. 

While both are WRONG in our respective societies it's not in theirs. Who are WE to decide for them Right or Wrong. 
WE don't have to do it, WE don't have to have laws like that. 

We have to put the shoe on the other foot and think about if it were our people who were committing terrorist acts on their people and they were powerful enough to send armies to our country to root out the terrorist... then find our way of life repugnant and WRONG... would we want THEM to tell US how to live? 

Same ting. 

We are over there to root out possible terrorist who may commit further acts of aggression and terror against the U.S. THAT IS ALL we are there for. NOT to determine their way of life or to try and change it. 
We can offer escapes for those who do not want to live there and provide sanctuary for those women who want to be away from their abusive way of life... they can come HERE if we are merciful and compassionate enough to understand their plight and misery... but one HAS to question our right to go into another country and change how THEY decide to do things. 
It's not turning a blind eye but there should be a line drawn in respecting how others should want to live... no matter how repugnant it may be for us. 

If we go on this tangent then we might as well invade Thailand and change their child-sex laws as well. 

We would take great umbrage if they came over here and tried to change our way of doing things. 
It's what THEY choose to believe/live just as we choose to believe/live. They view our women as wonton sluts because they parade around in bikini's and show their hair and faces and so forth... encouraging impure sexual thoughts in the men and boys. It's how THEY see us... are they WRONG... are WE? 

It's none of our damned business HOW they live their lives when you think about it... unless or until we allow THEM to dictate to us how WE should live then we shouldn't dictate to THEM how to live. 

All the while I agree strongly that they're wrong by OUR moral standards. But it has always been my belief that people have the right to choose how they live and if a people have been oppressed long enough they *will* rise against (or escape) their oppressors.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 12, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Agreed that it is wrong. Just the same as the Afghan government passed a law where it is legal for the husband to rape the wife if she says no to sex.
> 
> Thing is... it's how THEY live over THERE and not how WE over HERE.
> 
> ...


 so, you are OK with child molestation as long as it is in another country. Wow. 





> We have to put the shoe on the other foot and think about if it were our people who were committing terrorist acts on their people and they were powerful enough to send armies to our country to root out the terrorist... then find our way of life repugnant and WRONG... would we want THEM to tell US how to live?
> 
> Same ting.
> 
> ...


No. There really isn't a gray area on child molestation, etc, wrong is wrong, no matter when, or where, or by who. Oppression? Seriously? Dragging people kicking and screaming into the 21st century is not oppression. Denying people the "right" to eight year old wives is not oppression.

Anyone who says this is acceptable because it is within cultural norms needs a smack upside the head.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 12, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> It's none of our damned business HOW they live their lives when you think about it.[...]it has always been my belief that people have the right to choose how they live



There are a lot of ways in which I agree with you, but I don't think this 8 year old girl really can make a choice. The difference between some of the ways women are treated and the way slaves have been treated are small enough to make me uncomfortable simply respecting their cultural choice.

As an aside, anyone who believes that an 8 year old can be sentenced to life in prison for murder but also believes an 8 year old can't decide to get married (even if it's at her father's urging) has a bit of a contradiction to resolve.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 12, 2009)

*Don*, I can understand your emotional reaction to this issue but please take a moment to think about what you are saying, who you are saying it to and in reaction to what you are saying it.

Given some of the things that happen in the US of A, throwing of stones is ever going to be a precarious activity for one who lives in a glass house.

Now, over here in Britain, we moved away from such practices centuries ago but they most certainly did occur.  Marriages at astoundingly early ages were not at all abnormal, especially amongst the aristocracy where such arrangements were surety for alliances.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 12, 2009)

Arranged marriages have a long history in all human societies.  The concept of marrying for love is relatively recent.

The age of consent for juveniles to marry also varies widely.  Eight is certainly on the low side, but even in the USA, girls as young as 12 can marry with their parent's permission in some states.

The US does not permit involuntary marriage, though.  And I'm glad we don't.

As to spousal rape - as late as 1973, it was still legal in all 50 states - a man could not legally rape his wife, period.  It is still only a crime in 33 of the states, with the others making due with a civil charge (lawsuit) in place of criminal charges. Even some states which make spousal rape illegal, make it a lesser offense than rape between non-married people.

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32701

It can also be difficult to get prosecutors to prosecute husbands on marital rape charges, as it can be very difficult to prove the case.  Not to get to squicky, but the physical evidence, well, might well have been there for perfectly legal reasons.  Even signs of abuse can be used by the defense as evidence of a voluntary 'kinky' lifestyle.

I do not agree with laws that make it legal to rape one's spouse - however, even in the US, we still have such laws, very much like Afghanistan's.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 12, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> *Don*, I can understand your emotional reaction to this issue but please take a moment to think about what you are saying, who you are saying it to and in reaction to what you are saying it.
> 
> Given some of the things that happen in the US of A,


 Excuse me? Kindly cite the last *LEGALLY SANCTIONED *child molestation in the US. Or, at the very least throw stones remotely related to the OP. 





> throwing of stones is ever going to be a precarious activity for one who lives in a glass house.
> 
> Now, over here in Britain, we moved away from such practices centuries ago but they most certainly did occur.  Marriages at astoundingly early ages were not at all abnormal, especially amongst the aristocracy where such arrangements were surety for alliances.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 12, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Now, over here in Britain, we moved away from such practices centuries ago but they most certainly did occur.  Marriages at astoundingly early ages were not at all abnormal, especially amongst the aristocracy where such arrangements were surety for alliances.



Yeah, but you guys were mean to Jerry Lee Lewis...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AIBAJ&pg=4763,3112834&dq=jerry-lee-lewis+myra


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 12, 2009)

Big Don said:


> so, you are OK with child molestation as long as it is in another country. Wow.
> No. There really isn't a gray area on child molestation, etc, wrong is wrong, no matter when, or where, or by who. Oppression? Seriously? Dragging people kicking and screaming into the 21st century is not oppression. Denying people the "right" to eight year old wives is not oppression.


 *NO* and a resounding *HELL NO* I am *NOT* okay with child molestation *ANYWHERE, ANYTIME! *I *never* advocated it *at any point* in my post! I agree there is *NO* grey area involving child molestation, abuse or even spousal or woman abuse/molestation. Get that understood. I will not repeat myself on that again! I've said enough. 
However; if we had the *RIGHT* to *stop* another country from doing it then by all means. If we had the right to change another country's culture then by all means. But we do NOT have the RIGHT to dictate to another country how they should govern themselves. Other wise lets just TAKE over like the Russians have tried to do with other countries, and Germany and China and countless of others throughout history. 

This is *the* danger we as a species face right now. The idea that EVERYONE should live the way one group decides they should. It is the slow erosion of cultural diversity. This is part of the idea of One World Government... that all should live by IT'S rules alone. 
One country can go to war with another and that's fine... tribal warfare is common and natural amongst the human species. 

But going to war to have the audacity to change how they live simply because they do not agree with how WE want to live is wrong. *Just as* *wrong* as their ideas about marriage and how to treat women. 
That is what I'm upset about... OUR actions being determined by our reactions (emotions) rather the right reason to fight the fight and to send American (and British) young men to die in a far-away-land where we're not wanted anyway! 



Big Don said:


> Anyone who says this is acceptable because it is within cultural norms needs a smack upside the head.


Don ... I respect you and have begun to enjoy your posts and input. I will ignore this. :asian:


----------



## Big Don (Apr 12, 2009)

I don't think we have the right to ensure child molestation exists nowhere, I think we have a responsibility to do so. 
To let evil thrive somewhere, because we "don't have the right" to tell people that child molestation, etc is wrong is stupid. 
*All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing*.
IMHO, if you KNOW evil is being done and say it is OK because of X or Y or Z, you don't qualify as a good man.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 12, 2009)

There is no child molestation going on here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...ed-EIGHT-divorce-husband-50-years-senior.html



> "She doesn't know yet that she has been married," Jtili said then of the girl who was about to begin her fourth year at primary school.
> Relatives who did not wish to be named said that the marriage had not yet been consummated, and that the girl continued to live with her mother.
> They said that the father had set a verbal condition by which the marriage is not consummated for another 10 years, when the girl turns 18.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 12, 2009)

Big Don said:


> I don't think we have the right to ensure child molestation exists nowhere, I think we have a responsibility to do so.
> To let evil thrive somewhere, because we "don't have the right" to tell people that child molestation, etc is wrong is stupid.
> *All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing*.
> IMHO, if you KNOW evil is being done and say it is OK because of X or Y or Z, you don't qualify as a good man.



What, then, would be the right thing to do, Don?


----------



## Big Don (Apr 12, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> What, then, would be the right thing to do, Don?


Speaking out against evil is the very least humanity obligates us to do.
Mavis (Mrs Jay) Leno sets a good, if ignored, example of this.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 12, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Speaking out against evil is the very least humanity obligates us to do.
> Mavis (Mrs Jay) Leno sets a good, if ignored, example of this.




So because Caver isn't speaking out against the Saudi gov't on your thread, he's complicit with their behaviour?

And good for Mavis Leno, but even she picks her battles.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 12, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> So because Caver isn't speaking out against the Saudi gov't on your thread, he's complicit with their behaviour?
> 
> And good for Mavis Leno, but even she picks her battles.


He didn't not speak out against it. He said that we had no right to say it was wrong.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 12, 2009)

http://www.ladyofthecake.com/mel/saddles/sounds/holy.wav


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 12, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Speaking out against evil is the very least humanity obligates us to do.
> Mavis (Mrs Jay) Leno sets a good, if ignored, example of this.


That IS our right... to speak out.. but to FORCE change upon them is NOT our right NOR is it our obligation. 

How'd you like it if I came into your home and started forcing you at gun point to cook dinner in a certain manner or to make love to your wife in THIS way and not the manner you're (both) used to? That I make you change the furniture around and have you watch only THIS or THAT program on TV... I'm there in your house and forcing you to do these things? 

You'd be wanting to kick my *** wouldn't you? Why? Just because I'm trying to take away your right to live the way YOU want to live in your own home. What about it? So? Well it's wrong. 
I can on this forum or out in front of your house on the public sidewalk stand there and protest and protest loudly about how you're living in your own house... but I cannot just go in and MAKE you do it. 
Now if you're breaking the laws of the land then it's up to the authorities to enforce the laws... but is it against any international law what those countries' cultures say it's right to do (for them)? 
We can condemn and protest at what they're doing in their yard but we cannot force them to stop doing it until we have the RIGHT to do so. 
Morally we'd be right. But to their eyes we're being the immoral ones. 

All I'm saying like it or not, hate it or not we do NOT have the* right *to tell others how to live. We can try to convince them but a mind convinced against it's own will is of the same opinion still.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 12, 2009)

something needs to be said

Saudi law is based on Islam. It is a Sha'ria country after all

this decision as made by consulting Islam

that means ISLAM CONDONES THIS

after all, the prophet married a 6 year old.....


----------



## arnisador (Apr 12, 2009)

It means that some Muslim interpretations of the Koran and associated documents condone this...just as some interpretations of the Bible and associated documents condone (plural) marriage to children.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 12, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> something needs to be said
> 
> Saudi law is based on Islam. It is a Sha'ria country after all
> 
> ...


 I agree we do need to protest against this... but we cannot force them to it. We can stand and march right outside their homes and they can just open the door flip us off and go back inside and close the door and continue with what they're doing. 

If there is an international law against it and they SIGNED it by agreement then we can go in and enforce it. But like the Geneva convention Japan didn't sign it and therefore did whatever the hell they wanted with their prisoners of war. 

Same ting.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 13, 2009)

Please show me a court that makes decisions based soley on the bible and Christian law

And then show me one where they ok'd the marraige of an 8 year old.

untill then? keep on apologizing for and rationalizing thier atrocities

it makes you look VERY fair minded.



arnisador said:


> It means that some Muslim interpretations of the Koran and associated documents condone this...just as some interpretations of the Bible and associated documents condone (plural) marriage to children.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Please show me a court that makes decisions based soley on the bible and Christian law
> 
> And then show me one where they ok'd the marraige of an 8 year old.
> 
> ...



Jerry Lee Lewis married his 12-year-old cousin.  And he was surprised that people were so upset about it in England, it was common where he was from.

And he wasn't going to wait until she was 18, either, judging by the fact that she was pregnant by age 13.

Yeah, we've got lots of moral authority to tell other countries what to do.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2009)

Big Don said:


> so, you are OK with child molestation as long as it is in another country. Wow.
> No. There really isn't a gray area on child molestation, etc, wrong is wrong, no matter when, or where, or by who. Oppression? Seriously? Dragging people kicking and screaming into the 21st century is not oppression. Denying people the "right" to eight year old wives is not oppression.
> 
> Anyone who says this is acceptable because it is within cultural norms needs a smack upside the head.



Don, I don't see him saying it's ok. I see him saying it's the culture, which according to their laws, laws which are rather strictly enforced, says only that sex is legal when married. Otherwise, it's not.



Big Don said:


> Excuse me? Kindly cite the last *LEGALLY SANCTIONED *child molestation in the US. Or, at the very least throw stones remotely related to the OP.



Age of consent in alot of the US is 13/14.  Not much of a jump from 8 to 13 IMO.
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

Age is lower if legally married, which is allowed in many states if a parent signs off on it and a judge does as well.

My opinion?
8's too young. But in some countries, kids are soldiers at 14. Not my country, not my culture, not my concern. I'm sure I could rant, complain, and go on long forum screes and the Saudi King will issue a decree changing it.  Oh wait, he would care less what I think.

Lets just get everyone together, grab our guns (before they are collected by OUR government) and head over there and teach them how to respect a kid. Who's ready to go? 

Really. Who is ready to go? Get your guns, load up the attack craft, and go and teach them a lesson. Or, is the idea that we should send other people to die for this?

Sorry, not my country, not my faith, not my culture, not any way related to anyone I know or care about, so I'll be staying here.  If the Saudi's are concerned, they can handle it, which I believe they are, through their own systems. 

Course, they have some good ideas on drugs, drinking and a few other issues that we all enjoy, maybe they should come and "help" us, hmm?

Lets go on another bit.  Every day, hundreds of women and children are regularly raped all over Africa. Where's the outrage?

The Thai child sex industry is still pretty hot.  Virgins are sold off by their families, druged, raped then disposed of afterwords. That means killed, just so we're on the same page.  Where's the outrage?

Too much stress here. Lets all go relax at our local asian rub n tugs. Oh wait....half of them are staffed with illegals here in sex slavery. Where's the outrage?

Don, you and everyone else here who is incensed by this, has every right to be. It offends you, at a core level. Hell, it offends me too. But. Really, other than draw attention to the issue, what effect can we possibly have here?


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 13, 2009)

8 and 13 are VASTLY different in terms of basic physical development..I just have to add that...if you raised any you would see that. 8yo are 3rd graders fer chrissakes.

On another point. Who said anything about FORCING or INVADING anybody or any place? All I heard was that the OP thought that it was despicable and disgusting...which it is. Want to ***** about the Thai sex trade then start a thread on it. Somehow I dont think it would have generated the same heat because it isnt associated with Islam which is our current political hot button.

I think that things like this should effect our foriegn policy, and how we deal with these nations....absolutely.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 13, 2009)

The idea that sex and marriage is only appropriate for people who are at least in their late teens is a relatively new idea which has only risen in approximately the last fifty years, and only in the first world.

Until that point, and still in *most of the world* children as young as ten were regularly considered ready for sexual maturity and marriage. What we consider today to be the age of sexual maturity would have been, until fairly recently, considered beyond the prime.

Beyond that, numerous studies have shown that child sexual activity begins at ages as young as four.

Social and technological evolution tends to lead to the postponing of sexual activity until the teenage years. This is due in part to increased educational opportunities. Even then, nearly half of all teenagers 15-19 have had sex at least once.

While we may not agree with it, and while in some cases it may engender disgust and outrage within our culture, we should be rational enough to put that attitude in context and understand that we are in the minority in our views of human sexuality.

That doesn't make us wrong necessarily, but it does make us outnumbered.

The evidence would tend to show that if we really want to decrease the number of kids having sex around the world, we should increase the educational and technological level of the societies which are exhibiting high levels of child sexual behavior. That can only be accomplished through free trade, both of material goods and ideas.


-Rob


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 13, 2009)

Thats all very interesting. Except in this case the mother and daughter DONT WANT THE MARRIAGE TO HAPPEN! The girls father *sold her to pay a debt,* against the mom and girls will. 

And the Saudi "legal system" allows it. "Saudi Arabia", a supposedly wealthy, modern, second..if not first world culture.Technologicaly at least.

This isnt a case of "everybody is happy so leave them alone" here....


----------



## Big Don (Apr 13, 2009)

FYI:
In the original meaning, First World countries were Western Nations i.e., The US, Canada, the UK, etc. Second World countries were those industrialized nations allied with the Soviet/Eastern block. Third World nations were (are) either NON aligned nations or non-industrialized nations.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Apr 13, 2009)

I would worry more about the girl being raped in my own country first then worry about another countries culture. If you want to change it start with your own backyard first.

Big Don if you feel strongly about it go there and try to change it.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Apr 13, 2009)

I don't know about "forcing" countries to comply with our sensibilities, but on the other hand, we don't have to grant them Most Favored Nation Trade Status, either.

I mean, unless they have oil or something, in which case who cares about 8 year old kids, anyway?


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 13, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Thats all very interesting. Except in this case the mother and daughter DONT WANT THE MARRIAGE TO HAPPEN! The girls father *sold her to pay a debt,* against the mom and girls will.
> 
> And the Saudi "legal system" allows it.


That is the point I'm trying, hell, been trying to make here... it's LEGAL over there so it's their business with what they do and how they run their country... it's none of ours... nor is it none of THEIRS to decide how WE run our (respective) countries. 
We can condemn it and be totally against it and write letters to them and all of that... but we CANNOT tell them HOW to live. Same as they cannot dictate our lives.


----------



## Carol (Apr 13, 2009)

When arrangements are made in the case of one or both spouses are children, the tradition is for them to remain with their parents until they reach an appropriate age, usually in their teens.

Not saying I agree with the practice, just saying that an arranged marriage at a young age does not automatically equate to child molestation.


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 13, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is no child molestation going on here.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...ed-EIGHT-divorce-husband-50-years-senior.html
> 
> ...



This is worth repeating.  I bolded and underlined these words for emphasis.  If they actually do comply with the conditions set forth, then I have no objection with this marriage (although I still think she is too young to be married, especially since she has no say with the decision).  At least, they're holding off the consummation.  I wouldn't be surprised if this happens before she turns 18.

Apparently she is continuing her education as she is mentioned to be in her fourth year at primary school.  For that, I applaud their decision to let her continue her schooling.

- Ceicei


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 13, 2009)

I know we cant change it, i know that really, we dont have the right to try to change it, but i would think the least we can do is to say "thats wrong" 

period

dont then add on "but thats that culture and to them it isnt wrong...." or a bunch of other moral relativism crap

I know, i know, "keeping an open mind" and all that, and that is valid, to a degree, but much like a wound, if a mind is too open, for too long, it is prone to infection.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2009)

In that culture, it's often not seen as wrong.

Doesn't negate the fact that in ours, we see it as wrong.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> untill then? keep on apologizing for and rationalizing thier atrocities
> 
> it makes you look VERY fair minded.



Since you seem to have difficulty even seeing things from the POV of an American from the Democratic party, I am not surprised that you're finding this a stretch even after it's been explained that this doesn't entail the child leaving her home, let alone engaging in sexual relations.


----------



## KELLYG (Apr 13, 2009)

I don't agree with the child in essence being sold to a man 40yrs her senior against her, and his wifes will, but in that area of the world it is not uncommon. This sounds more like a "pre-arranged" marriage not what we would consider being  Married.  She is indeed his wife but is NOT expected to preform intimate relations until she is over the age of consent. 

This to me is different than if she was expected at 8yrs old to have relations with her husband.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> I know we cant change it, i know that really, we dont have the right to try to change it, but i would think the least we can do is to say "thats wrong"
> 
> period
> 
> ...


 
This may be the most lucid thing I've ever seen you post.

And I agree.


-Rob


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> I know we cant change it, i know that really, we dont have the right to try to change it, but i would think the least we can do is to say "thats wrong"
> 
> period
> 
> ...



Exactly. Its as if we are not allowed to think anything is wrong anymore without getting a lecture.

That slaughter in Darfur is just "the way they do things over there". Somali piracy isnt "wrong" to them. Who are we to tell them to stop? If something doesn't effect me then its not MY problem.

Its one thing to hold those type of beliefs when it comes to deciding if its worth military intervention in others affairs, but how long is it till that type of "relativism" seeps into our everyday lives? Who are we to judge the child molester down the street?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 13, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Exactly. Its as if we are not allowed to think anything is wrong anymore without getting a lecture.



Who said you are to think a certain way?  Think whatever you like.  I certainly do.



> That slaughter in Darfur is just "the way they do things over there". Somali piracy isnt "wrong" to them. Who are we to tell them to stop? If something doesn't effect me then its not MY problem.



Right.  When they attacked a US-flagged ship, it became our problem.  Until then, not so much.



> Its one thing to hold those type of beliefs when it comes to deciding if its worth military intervention in others affairs, but how long is it till that type of "relativism" seeps into our everyday lives? Who are we to judge the child molester down the street?



Not a slippery slope argument that I can buy into.  China has a 'one child' policy that I find brutal and inhuman.  Also not my problem.  I doubt they'll try to impose that law here.  And if we try to impose a law like that, then...I'll have something to say about it.

And of course, you continue to conflate 'child marriage' where the kid is married in a fairly symbolic way with child molestation.  As noted, the 'consumation' is not to take place until the girl is 18, and she lives with mommy until then, and she is free to divorce at that age, as the judge said.  In what way is that child molestation?

Here in the USA, we demand that we have the right to run our own affairs as we see fit.  Other countries routinely condemn us for having a death penalty, the Pope is mad at us for allowing abortion, and the UN has a never-ending stream of complaints about how awful we are, and in many cases, how in violation of UN rules we are.  We don't care.   They can all take a long walk off a short pier. We're the USA, and we do what we want.

Fine with me.  But if we demand the right to self-determination, then other countries get that right to their own self-rule, too.  And we can pass judgment on them, urge them to change, even choose not to do business with them - all fine with me.  But force them to change?  Please.  Like we'd allow Afghanistan to come here and tell us how to run our lives.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Apr 13, 2009)

It's all right to get upset. The idea of a child being molested is abhorent. But child brides happen in many cultures, and in fact in some here in the US, they see it as perfectly fine. We of course rightly see them as total wack jobs.  Who is right? I don't know, but I myself am more concerned with the issues at home than anyhing that goes on elsewhere.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 13, 2009)

Since it's been established that sex is not involved in this relationship at this point then half of this thread is meaningless.



Twin Fist said:


> something needs to be said
> 
> Saudi law is based on Islam. It is a Sha'ria country after all
> 
> ...


 
Actually Saudi law is based on a specific interpretation of Islam called Wahhabism which the vast majority of Muslims outside of Saudi Arabia do not follow.   Saying ISLAM CONDONES THIS is evidence that you need to do more research.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 13, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Actually Saudi law is based on a specific interpretation of Islam called Wahhabism which the vast majority of Muslims outside of Saudi Arabia do not follow. Saying ISLAM CONDONES THIS is evidence that you need to do more research.


 
*<tongue in cheek mode "on">*

No more research is needed. Islam is evil, a religion of violence, one that condones forced conversion, violent acts,the burning of books, the withholding of real education, the destruction of priceless artifacts,the ffeding of puppies to cats,  and the exploitation and subservience of all females. This case is just one more in a long line of evidence that stretches back to before 9/11 and the '72 Olympics and proves that the Islamic world-like the Klingons in Star Trek-_The Undiscovered Country_-can't be trusted,and just aren't like us and never will be. :lfao:

*<tongue in cheek mode "off">* :lfao:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2009)

Never Trust A Klingon!!!!!!!!!!
[yt]-CSCQ-fSnfs[/yt]


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 13, 2009)

Edmund BlackAdder said:


> It's all right to get upset. The idea of a child being molested is abhorent. But child brides happen in many cultures, and in fact in some here in the US, they see it as perfectly fine. We of course rightly see them as total wack jobs.  Who is right? I don't know, but I myself am more concerned with the issues at home than anyhing that goes on elsewhere.



Quite so. It seems to me that there are countries in the world that do not operate specifically under any interpretation of Muslim law, where women and children are actively traded as commodities for sexual tourism.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 13, 2009)

yeah, because they SAY there wont be sex, lets just not worry about it.....

I dont need to do anything, as I am pretty well defined on right and wrong. My mother saw to that.And Elder can talk as much crap as he wants to, i dont think too highly of Islam, For good reason. Aside from all the death, and killing, and everything else: 

the PROPHET married a 6 year old and had sex with her when she was 9

No muslim is allowed to say that the prophet was WRONG, (even if some do say that in private)therefore, i stand by my statement, ISLAM CONDONES SEX WITH KIDS, even if some muslims do not condone the practice, thier religion DOES

Moral relativism is the last refuge of those too scared to stand up for what is right.



blindsage said:


> Actually Saudi law is based on a specific interpretation of Islam called Wahhabism which the vast majority of Muslims outside of Saudi Arabia do not follow.   Saying ISLAM CONDONES THIS is evidence that you need to do more research.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2009)

Behold now, _I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out     unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes.

_


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Apr 13, 2009)

Given the Prophet married a 6yr old looking at life expectancy back then the average person lived to about 50. If we are going to equivalent by todays standards that average life is 66 yrs of age. Then 6yrs of age is about 16yrs equivalent and 10yrs is 26yrs equivalent based on life expectancy in that time period. It really is difficult to compare children by standards of 7th century A.D. and compare it with 21st century A.D. Also concerning Aishah age some debate if she really was 9 when she was married or older.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...sh-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE


----------



## blindsage (Apr 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> yeah, because they SAY there wont be sex, lets just not worry about it.....
> 
> I dont need to do anything, as I am pretty well defined on right and wrong. My mother saw to that.And Elder can talk as much crap as he wants to, i dont think too highly of Islam, For good reason. Aside from all the death, and killing, and everything else:
> 
> ...


 
I'm not condoning moral relativism, I'm condoning education.  Moral fanaticism is the first refuge of those too scared to admit they could be wrong.


----------



## grydth (Apr 13, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Behold now, _I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out     unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes.
> 
> _



Behold, I have two young daughters, too...... and anyone who does them had best be faster than a speeding bullet, as they will need to be. Should I ever owe a Saudi a debt, they'll have to make do with American Express Travelers Checks and not one of my kids.

In a more serious vein, this has been an educational thread..... it appears that the offense has gone from suspected pederasty to the simple fact that females have no rights at all in some parts of the world. 

I guess that they can do whatever they want in their own nation, without our intervention. But it doesn't mean we have to approve it... and I'm getting dead tired of a line of US Presidents telling us this bunch is "our friends."


----------



## Big Don (Apr 13, 2009)

pederasty is the sexual molestation of BOYS, although, THAT is common in Muslim countries also...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2009)

grydth said:


> Behold, I have two young daughters, too...... and anyone who does them had best be faster than a speeding bullet, as they will need to be. Should I ever owe a Saudi a debt, they'll have to make do with American Express Travelers Checks and not one of my kids.
> 
> In a more serious vein, this has been an educational thread..... it appears that the offense has gone from suspected pederasty to the simple fact that females have no rights at all in some parts of the world.
> 
> I guess that they can do whatever they want in their own nation, without our intervention. But it doesn't mean we have to approve it... and I'm getting dead tired of a line of US Presidents telling us this bunch is "our friends."


Actually, my quote is from the Christian Bible.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Apr 13, 2009)

> homosexuality is condemned and forbidden by the holy law of Islam, but there are times and places in Islamic history when the ban on homosexual love seems no stronger than the ban on adultery


 
As said by Bernard Lewis.



> despite strong Shar&#8216;i disapproval, the sexual relations of a mature man with a subordinate youth were so readily accepted in upper-class circles&#8230; The fashion entered poetry, especially the Persian.&#8221;


 As said by Marshall Hodgson.



> pederasty is the sexual molestation of BOYS, although, THAT is common in Muslim countries also...


 Couldn't it be said of Catholic priests which according to:



> _With wine and boys around, the monks have no need of the Devil to tempt them,_ an early Christian saying from the Middle East


 Pederasty was a common practice in just about every place.
I think pederasty differs from molestation both as definations and action.
Pederasty means love of boys,adore,cheerish,passion. Though Erasthai could mean Lover does not mean there is sexual interaction though most likely was IMO it was a mutual,cultural,and social concent where   Molestation means 
to force physical and usually sexual contact on. It does not fit the defination of Pederasty which may or may not have sexual interaction.


----------



## Scott T (Apr 13, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Behold now, _I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out     unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes.
> 
> _


Genesis 19:8.

_Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof._

Basically saying that he's willing to let whoever he's talking too rape his daughters, but leave the males in the house alone since he's kinda responsible for them.

Interesting, and relevent, quote, Bob.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> yeah, because they SAY there wont be sex, lets just not worry about it.....


 
Precisely the same circumstance that was common throughout Europe for centuries and continued in the States too in the early years of it's establishment and expansion.



Twin Fist said:


> I dont need to do anything, as I am pretty well defined on right and wrong. My mother saw to that.And Elder can talk as much crap as he wants to, i dont think too highly of Islam, For good reason. Aside from all the death, and killing, and everything else:


 
That is not really a viable argument, especially as the Christian church has been responsible for far worse. 



Twin Fist said:


> the PROPHET married a 6 year old and had sex with her when she was 9


 
That I can't comment upon.  I do, however, agree that the foundings of the Islamic religion are just as shaky as that of the Christian and that the actions of it's founders are just as morally impeachable.



Twin Fist said:


> No muslim is allowed to say that the prophet was WRONG, (even if some do say that in private)therefore, i stand by my statement, ISLAM CONDONES SEX WITH KIDS, even if some muslims do not condone the practice, thier religion DOES


 
Eventually they will grow out of their mythical-sky-god type of idiocy.  The West nearly did ... but not quite ... and I will bet that it will not be all that long before we see a religious 'civil' war based precisely on that problem.  When the dust settles, then the hegenomy of the West will likely be done and all emoting on the subject of religion fairly moot.

The fact that, if we could all just use our intelligence and cooperate, we could achieve a trully survivable society this time round will be a sad echo for the next time our species climbs out of the dark ages.



Twin Fist said:


> Moral relativism is the last refuge of those too scared to stand up for what is right.


 
This is the part that really intrigues me tho'.  What is it that you refer to when you use the term "moral relativism"?  

To me it means being able to distinguish between moral judgements that hold true in one framework that do not in another.  

It's generally used to counter such things as condemnation of the actions that lead to the creation of the British Empire - when my forbears created that empire, the actions necessary to do so were not out of tune with their times.  It is only looking back using our moral compass from today that what was done abrades on our sensativities.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 13, 2009)

Come on, just TRY it, it isnt hard:

"thats wrong, period"

no buts, no conditional modifiers, no putting it in context, just say it is wrong, if you are capable of it




blindsage said:


> I'm not condoning moral relativism, I'm condoning education.  Moral fanaticism is the first refuge of those too scared to admit they could be wrong.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 13, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> This is the part that really intrigues me tho'.  What is it that you refer to when you use the term "moral relativism"?



when people are too friggin brainwashed to just say "thats wrong, period"

they feel some need to excuse it, like "thats normal over there" or, the ever popular "yeah, but X is so much worse" 

you just did that one yourself Marc

it comes from a totally modern concept that we shouldnt be judgemental.

Which is horsecrap

want to know why there is so much outlandish behavior these days? because people let it happen, and they dont want to be mean, so they make excuses for bad behavior.

"well, it's their culture, we cant really judge it"

"well, sure islam is bad, but in the DISTANT PAST chrisitanity was just as bad" as if it matters what happened long ago compared to NOW

excuses, excuses,excuses

and the thing is, the excuses might be 100% true, but they are also irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It DOESNT matter what christianity did in 1500, if that isnt what you are talking about.

as the country singer once said, "you got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything"


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 13, 2009)

Sorry, John.  I agree that as far as my moral compass points, then, yes, such things are wrong.

But ...

... Morality (deliberate capitalisation) is not an absolute.  It is ever manipulated by who you are, where you are born and when you grew up.

It is precisely because morality is not absolute that the USA is considered by certain countries and peoples to be one of the most immoral nations in the world - a direct result of the actions it has taken to ensure it's present (temporary) prime of place at the top of the heap.

If morality were an absolute, then everyone would see that the value set that can be averaged from the past administrations of the States was clearly the way forward for all.  But they don't.

I don't think we can resolve this dichotomy in our stances - certainly not via the Net.  A decade or two of long conversations into the night over a few beers might do the trick (by mutual agreement to agree to disagree I would guess) but not a handful of soundbites on a computer screen.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> "well, sure islam is bad, but in the DISTANT PAST chrisitanity was just as bad" as if it matters what happened long ago compared to NOW



_Distant past_? Molestation of children, keeping women who follow their faith or live in countries where they are in the majority from access to birth control, fighting evolution and other forms of science, spreading their creed of intolerance of those who think differently from them...they've got plenty to answer for right now.


----------



## Carol (Apr 13, 2009)

I think its wrong. Period.   

If the relationship gets sexual before the child is of proper age than that is wrong.  However, There are plenty of traditions (even in not-so-progressive countries) that would support the child staying with their parents until they are of age.  My concern is that in the outcry over something that hasn't happened, the "crimes" that ARE happening are getting lost.

I don't have an issue with arranged marriages when the child is an adult, entering in to the process willingly, with a family that doesn't have any ulterior motives.  There are gazillions of marriages that were/are performed in precisely this way. No issue from my side.

When children are set up to be married, by definition that arrangement has an ulterior motive other than the child's happiness.   A child is being "sold", for money, status, political power, whatever.  I think that is wrong.

In this case, not only is the child being "sold" but they are also being "sold" to an unnatural match.   This I think is wrong.    The disturbing pattern of how its generally female children that are exploited is also something that I think is wrong.

And yes, if one adds the sexual element, the scenario gets much, much worse.  However, there is plenty wrong with this picture even if the marriage isn't consummated before the child comes of age.


----------



## crushing (Apr 13, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> That is not really a viable argument, especially as the Christian church has been responsible for far worse.
> 
> That I can't comment upon.  I do, however, agree that the foundings of the Islamic religion are just as shaky as that of the Christian and that the actions of it's founders are just as morally impeachable.



I'm trying to figure out where this is going.  What do these statements about a Christian church have to do with the rightness, wrongness, or otherwise of the 8-year old being married/sold off despite the protest of both the child and the mother?


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 13, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> On another point. Who said anything about FORCING or INVADING anybody or any place? All I heard was that the OP thought that it was despicable and disgusting...which it is. Want to ***** about the Thai sex trade then start a thread on it. Somehow I dont think it would have generated the same heat because it isnt associated with Islam which is our current political hot button.


 That's because we've been presently brain washed to see anything Islamic over there as the enemy. Just like during the 50's & 60's Communists were the "enemy", just like during the 40's the Japanese and Germans were the enemy and the Germans by themselves in the early 1900's. 
Who's next on the list of us to hate? China (IMO NOT a bright idea)
 If we were attacked by extremist from Somolia or some other African nation we'd be saying bad stuff about THEM and not their Arabic neighbors. We presently hate those who the government tells us to hate. Bush and his administration must've use the word *TERROR* at least 5000 times since 9/11 sprinkling in doses of Al Queda and Islam here in there to help maintain our focus. The news media splashed (and continues to do so) headlines with *TERROR *in the wording. They'll continue to reinforce it by splashing headlines about their culture which runs counter to ours, knowing full well it will cause us to be outraged at those damned Islamic people. 
It's brain washing to get us to hate whomever they *want* us to hate. 


Archangel M said:


> I think that things like this should effect our foriegn policy, and how we deal with these nations....absolutely.


Hell they do but not in the way you might think... but we do govern our foreign policy IF they are an immediate threat to US. A guy marrying an 8 year old girl in Saudi Arabia is not an immediate threat to our national security. Thousands of muslim girls being clitorially circumcised isn't a threat to our national security either... so we're not going to impose economic sanctions against the Saudi's or other Muslim countries for that. 
Korea launching a potential long range ballastic nuclear missile IS an immediate threat to the national security.


----------



## Scott T (Apr 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> "well, sure islam is bad, but in the DISTANT PAST chrisitanity was just as bad" as if it matters what happened long ago compared to NOW
> 
> excuses, excuses,excuses
> 
> and the thing is, the excuses might be 100% true, but they are also irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It DOESNT matter what christianity did in 1500, if that isnt what you are talking about.


Not just the distant past, but also in the recent past (IRA in the UK, for example)

When I expanded on Bob's biblical quote, it was for one reason, to point out the hypocrisy of people who say, in opposition to Islam, Christianity is a (laughably) peaceful religion. It isn't. Never was. Never was meant to be. 

The scary thing is, in _slightly_ different circumstances, people in America's Rabid Political Left or Right could have been machine-gunning innocents. Or, like Tim McVeigh, taking the easy way out and blowing the up.

The west does have one advantage. It gave up tribalism in favour of nationalism. Arranged marriages in tribal societies were important because, among other things, they symbolized unions of different, sometimes adversarial tribes, bringing peace. And make no mistake, tribalism still rules in the Middle East.

You said to say that the arranged marriage is wrong without thinking about context. Well, that's impossible for someone capable of independent thought. Although it's stock in trade of those who believe in following the herd.

Now to get back on the original topic. The marriage can not be consummated until she turns 18. The ironic thing is that she can file for divorce when she hits puberty, which, unless she's a very late bloomer, should happen between 5 and 7 years before said consummation. There is no child molestation involved.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2009)

crushing said:


> I'm trying to figure out where this is going.  What do these statements about a Christian church have to do with the rightness, wrongness, or otherwise of the 8-year old being married/sold off despite the protest of both the child and the mother?



The point is to bring out the cultural bias that contaminates these discussions, like the frequent references to "proper age" which apparently means "what we do in the U.S.".


----------



## crushing (Apr 13, 2009)

arnisador said:


> The point is to bring out the cultural bias that contaminates these discussions, like the frequent references to "proper age" which apparently means "what we do in the U.S.".



While cultural bias would be an excellent addition to the discussion, postings along the lines of "Group B is just as bad" as an apparent defense of the actions of Group A (or to challenge the statements of someone that may belong to Group B) isn't doing that at all.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 13, 2009)

all of which may be true, all of which may be bad, but NONE of which is the topic of the day with is an islamic court saying the FORCED marraige of an 8 year old is ok,

WHY cant you just say 'thats wrong, period" without having to justify, excuse or otherwise trying to explain it away?



arnisador said:


> _Distant past_? Molestation of children, keeping women who follow their faith or live in countries where they are in the majority from access to birth control, fighting evolution and other forms of science, spreading their creed of intolerance of those who think differently from them...they've got plenty to answer for right now.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> WHY cant you just say 'thats wrong, period" without having to justify, excuse or otherwise trying to explain it away?


 
Because it's *not?*

There, I said it. While I find it repellent, and wouldn't be engaged in such a process, I can't find anything "wrong" here. It's a culture of arrainged and sometimes FORCED marriage. It's a culture where the daughter's chief function in the family is often to bring a bride price for marriage. SHe's going to continue to live with her parents. THe court has said she can _try_ to divorce him once she reaches puberty. There's no consummation until she's of age. In a world where these types of things occur all over, in a variety of cultures: some "Islamic" *and* tribal, some merely tribal, it's just not that big a deal to me. Sad, regrettable, and in some ways ugly, but wrong?

_"Wrong"_ is an eight year old boy with a priest's penis FORCED in his anus.


----------



## granfire (Apr 13, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Because it's *not?*
> 
> There, I said it. While I find it repellent, and wouldn't be engaged in such a process, I can't find anything "wrong" here. It's a culture of arrainged and sometimes FORCED marriage. It's a culture where the daughter's chief function in the family is often to bring a bride price for marriage. SHe's going to continue to live with her parents. THe court has said she can _try_ to divorce him once she reaches puberty. There's no consummation until she's of age. In a world where these types of things occur all over, in a variety of cultures: some "Islamic" *and* tribal, some merely tribal, it's just not that big a deal to me. Sad, regrettable, and in some ways ugly, but wrong?
> 
> _"Wrong"_ is an eight year old boy with a priest's penis FORCED in his anus.



Pretty wrong, selling girls off like a piece of cattle. There are many ways of wrong, child molestation is one of them, human trade another. Like you put in Italics, she can try a divorce. yeah! I am sure she'll be happy to carry the stigma around, too. Maybe she gets lucky and her groom-to-be kicks the bucket....

sheesh....mankind never ceases to amaze me.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 13, 2009)

elder999 said:


> _"Wrong"_ is an eight year old boy with a priest's penis FORCED in his anus.



and if that was the subject, you would be right, that would be wrong, PERIOD

but it is nice to know you are ok with forced marraige of children.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2009)

Here's another one.  How about the ritualistic mutilation of male children at birth? 
Seems cruel to me yet how many of the parents here had their boys circumsized?


I'm as against child sex, as I am against child marriage, as I am against child mutilation.

But what other cultures do, that I'm not involved in, is less my concern than what my own does is.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> all of which may be true, all of which may be bad, but NONE of which is the topic of the day with is an islamic court saying the FORCED marraige of an 8 year old is ok,
> 
> WHY cant you just say 'thats wrong, period"



An in-theory-only marriage that has no effect on her day-to-day life and that she can divorce before she'd have to ever lay eyes on the husband? No, I don't like it, but when I compare it to people dying for lack of health insurance her in the States I can put it in perspective. We allow alcohol use despite all the deaths it causes. I imagine that looks illogical to them.

I also put it in perspective by considering the economic and technological levels of some of these countries, and considering how marriage was used and viewed in Europe and the U.S. at similar points in their development.

The big issue is that women in many of these countries are treated little better than slaves and are unable to make their voices heard, so they can't honestly be said to have chosen this lifestyle. But looking at how well we're doing at changing attitudes in Afghanistan, I'm reluctant to suggest a cure.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Here's another one.  How about the ritualistic mutilation of male children at birth?
> Seems cruel to me yet how many of the parents here had their boys circumsized?



Of course, now that studies repeatedly show the (moderate) health benefits of the procedure it would not necessarily be a bad idea to do it prophylactically. But yes, cutting parts off of people to please your personal notion of God is rather barbaric.


----------



## granfire (Apr 13, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Here's another one.  How about the ritualistic mutilation of male children at birth?
> Seems cruel to me yet how many of the parents here had their boys circumsized?
> 
> 
> ...




Hmm, that little flap of skin is not needed in life, cutting pieces off of little girls is more concerning....


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 13, 2009)

But the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.

Orthodoxy - G. K. Chesterton.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2009)

granfire said:


> Hmm, that little flap of skin is not needed in life, cutting pieces off of little girls is more concerning....


Says who? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision

Mind you, I'm just as repulsed by the forced mutilation of girls too.

But the forced ritualistic mutilation of helpless boys is a judeo/christiatic tradition, practiced daily in the civilized US of A.

If we are going to argue that the Islamic approved practice of child marriage is evil, then certainly we can also mention that the Christian practice of child mutilation is just as evil.

Or, is it only evil when a religion we hate does it?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2009)

What's done to girls--esp. at the more extreme ends of the spectrum--is plainly worse than male circumcision. But operating on a child for religious rather than medical reasons is problematic regardless.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2009)

Right.

Now, if we eliminate the invisible friend from the argument (or angry sky father), if you prefer we can look at this simply.

Is it acceptable to force marry a child?
No.

Is it acceptable to mutilate a child?
No.

There, I'm done.

I'll let others decide what their pretend sky friends prefer when it comes to abusing children. My imaginary friends think it's all rather stupid and have invited me for tea.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 13, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> marriage is evil, then certainly we can also mention that the Christian practice of child mutilation is just as evil.




Circumcision isnt as simple as that.

http://www.circinfo.net/who_in_the_world_gets_circumcised.html


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 13, 2009)

Of this whole discussion, the thing that baffles me is that several people try to mitigate the actions in the article by saying, "oh, well so and so is not better, so you really can't complain."

Interesting.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2009)

Shouldn't we fix our own issues before we condemn someone else for theirs?


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 13, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Of this whole discussion, the thing that baffles me is that several people try to mitigate the actions in the article by saying, "oh, well so and so is not better, so you really can't complain."
> 
> Interesting.



Agreed. Where does it end? How far does the blast radius on "let them do what they want..its not our business" extend? Where do you draw the line concerning what is right or wrong in your own back yard? How easy it is to let "moral relativism" into your own life.

I'm not saying that we have the duty to or should invade Saudi Arabia over something like this or that we have to stop trade and aid with every country that doesn't share our morality, but Im with Twin Fist on this...I find it discouraging how often the "moral relativism" debate pops up whenever someone wants to say that something is WRONG.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 14, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Shouldn't we fix our own issues before we condemn someone else for theirs?




Name any society that has EVER "fixed its issues"? When will our issues ever be "fixed"? When, in human history has there EVER been a "fixed state"? That's always the mantra against spending money on exploration. How can we spend money on space exploration when it should be used to feed the poor? There will always be a reason to not do something. Its always thrown out as some sort of counter argument for standing up for someone elses rights. No offense but that has never been a good argument for letting evil "over there" have its way.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2009)

Well, if those of us who understand the cultural differences are wrong for pointing that out, then what should our proper reactions be here?

Join the hate against a religion?
Complain loudly on a website that none of those involved directly read?
Just go "baaah" and say "I agree"?

Here's my real problem here.  Every so often an issue like this comes up, FUD comes into play, people argue, tempers flare, and then it gets back burnered until the next chest beater comes along.  In the mean time, the other thousand+ victims are ignored.

I'll limit this soley to Child Marriage.

Twin Fist and maybe a few others? have this anti-Islam thing going on here, as if it's an Islam issue.

It's not.

Where is the Outrage against Indian child brides, or Thai child brides, etc?  No where.  It's this whole "Anti-Islam" bent that's pissing me off.

Here, chew on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage



> *Africa*
> 
> Despite many countries enacting marriageable age laws to limit marriage to a minimum age of 16 to 18, depending on jurisdiction, traditional marriages are widespread. Poverty, tradition, and conflict make the incidence of child marriage in Sub-Saharan Africa similar to South Asia.[1]
> In many tribal systems, a man pays a bride price to the girl's family in order to marry her. (Compare with the customes of dowry and dower.) In many parts of Africa, this payment, in cash, cattle, or other valuables, decreases as a girl gets older. Even before puberty it is common for a married girl to leave her parents to be with her husband. Many marriages are poverty related, with parents needing the bride price to feed, clothe, educate, and house the rest of the family. Meanwhile, a male child in these countries is more likely to gain a full education, gain employment and pursue a working life, thus tending to marry later. In Mali, the female:male ratio of marriage before age 18 is 72:1; in Kenya, 21:1.[1]
> ...


Just a few bits, also bolded above.


 In parts of Ethiopia and Nigeria, over 50% of girls are married before the age of 15 and some girls are married as young as the age of 7
 In South Africa, there are legal provisions made for respecting the marriage laws of traditional marriages whereby a person might be married as young as 12 for females
 40% of the world's child marriages occur in India.
 However, Islam does prescribe that a bride or groom must be mature physically (have gone through puberty) and emotionally.
 here are no laws defining the minimum age for marriage in Saudi Arabia, and girls as young as eight years of age can marry
What can we do to fix this?
What makes our opinion that this is wrong, the correct one?
When is "Old Enough" and why?

Can those 3 questions be answered, or is the only answer we're supposed to give is "Damn right, those evil bastards!"?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 14, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Well, if those of us who understand the cultural differences are wrong for pointing that out, then what should our proper reactions be here?
> 
> Join the hate against a religion?
> Complain loudly on a website that none of those involved directly read?
> ...


I completely agree that child abuse should be condemned across the board and we should not focus solely on Islam for it's mistreatment of children. This thread was initially focusse o a child bride in Saudi Arabia. I'm sure that if this thread was about the child sex slave in Thailand or India, or the slave trade in Africa, then Big Don and the like would complain about that also.

This child bride situation is just one more thing that pisses non islamic people off about Islam. Radical Islam is being scrutinized more than any other religion now on all fronts and rightly so. After USS Cole, Cobalt Towers, two US embassies, dozens of beheadings, the London bombings and of course 911. I think people have the right to bash radical Islam. I wouldn't minds as much if Islamic clerics spoke out against such violence, but they don't, and all we hear about from the media is how bad the US is for dunking a few of these idiots upside down in a bath in Guantanamo bay and playing loud hair metal music to torture them. In other words they might as well be living in a frat house in Long Beach.

It's wrong to marry a 8 year old girl off to a middle aged man, period. These people should be brought out of the dark ages.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 14, 2009)

Regardless of my views on the topic, The Issue I have with this entire discussion boils down to this:

I say its wrong and a moral outrage to Eat Cake

You say No, Cake is good, and everyone should have the chance to eat it.

Who the **** are you to decide that for me? Who the **** am I to decide that for you?

When did it EVER become ok to force MY Morals, YOUR morals, or Mohammad's Morals on EVERYONE else. You people come on here spouting the Superiority of the American Freedom while condemming that right to anyone who's morals aren't yours. Despite the fact that I agree with the position on 40 years olds marrying 8 year old children being sick, I find the demand that everyone think and act like you hypocritical and infantile. 

Maybe I should declare myself the King of The World and tell you all that you have an obligation to go along with MY beliefs based on how *I* was raised and what *I* was taught was right. Raise your hand if you are gonna listen to me?

Yeah. I didn't think so.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 14, 2009)

crushing said:


> I'm trying to figure out where this is going. What do these statements about a Christian church have to do with the rightness, wrongness, or otherwise of the 8-year old being married/sold off despite the protest of both the child and the mother?


 

True, not a lot to do with the OP, *Crushing*. 

It was purely an illustration of the wider issues that have been brought in blaming the religion of the country in question. It was an attempt to show those exhibiting moral outrage based upon their religion, that the foundation they stand on is not as steadfast as they could hope for.

Because nearly all of us posting here have been brought up in a country that can be packeted under the term 'Western', we all tend to share a common moral compass. 

Thus, if you asked most people here the direct question "Do you think it is right for a father to pass over his daughter in a promised marriage to a creditor?", I reckon the answer would be a clear "No!". Pretty short thread and not a great deal of shillyshallying around. Some of us might point out that such things have been prevalent throughout history and that our own ancesters didn't see anything wrong in it but even then the answer would probably be "No!" with the conditional clause "in this day and age".

Sadly, because the OP was intended to ferment an opportunity to cut and slash at an 'enemy' faith, the thread was never going to stay focussed on that target for long .


----------



## elder999 (Apr 14, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> but it is nice to know you are ok with forced marraige of children.


 
Since it didn't happen to me, or my children, or anyone I care about or even know, and since there is no physical consummation-it's largely symbolic and pecuniary-and since the child in question is going to finish her education, maybe try to get a divorce (hell, she _could_ wind up going through with it all in 7 years or so-it's not like she has a lot of other options anyway) _and since similar things occur in a variety of cultures that aren't "Islamic"_ , yeah, I'm more than ok with it.

Be a different story if anyone in question expected her to consummate the marriage any time soon, but it's pretty clear _from the story you linked to_ that they don't.

In the meantime, in many countries, including *ours*, the Rom (those are "Gypsies") routinely trade teenage women for their "bride price," and FORCE them to marry people they don't necessarily know, never mind "wanting" to marry them. Right and wrong, in the end, don't have anything to do with it-it's part of their culture, and the women usually accquiesce in order to stay part of that culture. It's pretty ******, but there it is-and I'm okay with it, because it _doesn't have anything to do with me._ I can only begin to try to understand how anyone can think such a thing *isn't* wrong, but, until I've done that, I'm in no position to judge, direct moral outrage and calumny, condemn, or issue _fatwah_.

It's a damn shame the Islamic terrorists don't put themselves in the same position, in my opinion. It's just *wrong* that they're so very certain that they're *right.* The problem, in the end, isn't what they believe, but their judgement and condemnation of _our_ culture, their looking at how we let women work, and go about with bare arms, and do what they want, and divorce men because they want to, and parade about half naked, and how we all consume alchohol, and foods that aren't _halal_, and mostly have no God in our lives, and don't pray to Mecca, and support Israel, and support Israel, and support Israel,  and to them, all of that is *wrong*-and something should be done about it......"moral relativism" is a sin to them as well, you see-their *absolutism* is what flew planes into skyscrapers 8 years ago...

Me, I've been experimenting with the _11th Commandment_:

*Thou shalt mind thine own business.*


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2009)

Big Don said:


> *8-year-old girl's marriage ruled legal*
> 
> Published: April 12, 2009 at 7:40 AM
> UPI/CNN EXCERPT:
> ...



I'm going back to the OP here. Lets summarize.



 Man exchanges his 8yr old daughter to pay a debt.
 Arranged marriages are common here.
The judge said the child wife could file for divorce once she reached puberty, but this marriage for now is legal. He also said that the mother, who is divorced from the father, was not the legal guardian and therefore could not motion for action.
An appeals court in Riyadh will consider the case again in a hearing set for next month.
"Zuhair Harithi of the Saudi Human Rights Commission told CNN child marriages in the country must be fought, saying they "violate international agreements that have been signed by Saudi Arabia and should not be allowed.""

Lets go through these points:


Man exchanges his 8yr old daughter to pay a debt.
Bad.


 Arranged marriages are common here.
Bad


The judge said the child wife could file for divorce once she reached puberty, but this marriage for now is legal. He also said that the mother, who is divorced from the father, was not the legal guardian and therefore could not motion for action.
Judge is enforcing their law, some of which are pretty identical to OUR "Good" laws. As the Non-Custodial parent of a child myself, I can tell you that the non-custodial parent has little if any say in what happens to their kids here, in the "good" USA. The Saudi child bride is allowed the option of divorce when she's of age, and it appears it could be granted if that is what she wants then, given her mothers divorced status.


An appeals court in Riyadh will consider the case again in a hearing set for next month.
The courts there are still working on this matter. This appeal will be the 3rd attempt to nullify the matter.  Now, before someone says "It shouldn't take 3 attempts", yeah, I agree with you. Then again it shouldn't take years for US Family Court to decide cases either. Every system has it's flaws.


"Zuhair Harithi of the Saudi Human Rights Commission told CNN child marriages in the country must be fought, saying they "violate international agreements that have been signed by Saudi Arabia and should not be allowed.""
Looks like the Saudi's themselves are working on fixing this part of their system, that we "good people" find offensive.

So, we have a case where a kid is sold off OR we have a case where a judge is blocking a non-rights holding parent from overstepping their legal limits, while allowing due process and legal recourse to continue.

Of course, taking the time to explore the issue, to see the big picture, to pay attention to particular details, that here is wrong.  We are only supposed to be narrow focused, and loudly proclaim how pissed we are.

As I have said, child marriages, arraigned marriages, etc. are all bad to me.
But, I won't blame a faith blindly, nor will I blame a people blindly, without taking the time to examine things in more detail, to better understand them, before working myself up to an purely emotional reaction.

If change is going to come to the Saudi system, it has to come from within. We can proclaim our disgust all we want, but in the end, unless you are going to invade, conquer and convert them, it's their problem.


----------



## girlbug2 (Apr 14, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Behold now, _I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes._


 
He, too was wrong. Note the bible does not condone his actions.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2009)

That said lets look at this part:


> I do not care if their culture considers this OK. Any culture that condones this is WRONG.
> Forcing an eight year old child to marry is WRONG. The father, and the "Husband" should both be shot.


4 points.



I do not care if their culture considers this OK.
I  do. Because if their culture does consider it ok, then there are also laws covering it, that also need to be brought up, so that we can see exactly how big a deal this is.


Any culture that condones this is WRONG.
I agree, but who are -we- to decide this?


 Forcing an eight year old child to marry is WRONG.
This is your opinion. It is one I agree with, but that only makes it -our- opinion. It doesn't make it fact or "right". What makes our view of wrongness the correct one?


The father, and the "Husband" should both be shot.
This is your opinion. You now condone killing, murder here, for a crime (child rape?) that reportedly hasn't happened yet.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2009)

girlbug2 said:


> He, too was wrong. Note the bible does not condone his actions.


True. But I'd like to see a quote from the Koran that specifically ok's child marriage and child sex.  I find plenty of sex, rape, prostitution, incest etc in the Christian one that looks pretty disgusting to me. Sons sleeping with their mothers, daughters drugging and raping their father, prostitutes given over to rape gangs, etc. Any faith that would be based on that's pretty wrong IMO and it's supporters should be maybe fed to lions while crowds watch and eat free bread.  Oh wait, others had that opinion too a while back. Never mind.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 14, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Any faith that would be based on that's pretty wrong IMO and it's supporters should be maybe fed to lions while crowds watch and eat free bread.  Oh wait, others had that opinion too a while back. Never mind.



Well, now, honestly the faith isn't BASED on that, they are stories of things that occurred perhaps, and Im not 100% up on my Bible, but I don't recall it being ok, or even condoned by God...


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 14, 2009)

Bob,
YOu asked "where is the outrage over child brodes in india"
I have a problem with forced marraige of a child, WHERE EVER it happens, but this article wasnt about india or thailand. It was about an incident in Saudi. So THAT particular incident is being expressed.

Yeah, I dislike Islam, even if you dont agree, if you cannot understand why i have a problem with it, you aint as smart as I think you are.

Circumcision is....well,i have a feeling most are dont today for reasons other than religious. I am glad my parents got me snipped.

but more importantly, human being have standards, some things are acceptable, some are not. This is entirely natural, and it is a GOOD thing. There is nothing wrong with being judgemental when you hear about something that is WRONG.

Even in prison, there is a stadard of conduct among the prisoners. Even among rapists and thieves, the abusers of children are scum.

maybe we are coded on a genetic level to protect kids, that would make sense from a totally secular standpoint.

But no Bob, we dont have to be perfect to realize that something is wrong.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2009)

> Well, now, honestly the faith isn't BASED on that, they are stories of things that occurred perhaps, and Im not 100% up on my Bible, but I don't recall it being ok, or even condoned by God...


Look, if you're going to suggest I actually read it, educate myself on it, maybe ever try to understand it a little before I start ad hom attacking it and blindly flailing at it and it's supporters, then you miss the point of arguing on an internet forum.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Bob,
> YOu asked "where is the outrage over child brodes in india"
> I have a problem with forced marraige of a child, WHERE EVER it happens, but this article wasnt about india or thailand. It was about an incident in Saudi. So THAT particular incident is being expressed.
> 
> ...


John,
  I recall all the anti-Islam fanfare right around the time the OK Fed. Building was blown to hell.  Anyone remember who did that? Yeah, a guy from NY, a -white- guy, a -christian- guy. All these school shootings we hear about? Usually middle class white kids from "good Christian homes". etc.  So, despite the fact that a group of primarily Saudi Religious Fanatics hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into some buildings and killed a few thousand people, or blew a hole in a US Navy vessel, or maybe even dragged some of our boys around in the dirt and hung them like sides of meat for all to see....I still refuse to broad-paint a group.  Blame the fact that I read a thousand books every year for a decade on that.

Yes, Humans have standards. Saudi's, and Muslims are Human. Remember that.
They have their standards, which they think are fine. We, who have different standards, disagree.  

Tell me, who's God is the right one? I want proof, his phone number and an interview appointment. 

Please, explain to me -WHY- it is wrong. "Just because" pissed me off when my mother said it, and it pisses me off now. No, strike that. It just annoys me.

Now, to me, yeah it's wrong.  But -why- is it wrong?
Because the culture I grew up in, my family, my friends, the faith they shared, and so on, -programmed me- to think it was wrong.

Grow up in an anti semetic family you'll probably hold negative feelings against Jews. 
Grow up in an conservative family, you'll probably be against mixed race, mixed religion and/or same sex relationships.

You are programmed to think this.  The fact that child molesters are short-lived in prison shows less its wrongness and more the fact that some "right/wrong" programming sunk into even the hardest thugs.

In nature, if it can breed, it's fair game.  We place artificial limits on nature, "no sex until 17' even though we're capable at 13. We fight nature, all the time.

And, no, I'm not excusing it, condoning it, etc.

I'm taking the time to understand it, BEFORE I decide it's wrong.

That is the difference in our arguments here my friend.  

To you, it's just wrong. Period. No need to explain or expand, it should be plainly simple to anyone with a brain on the "why".
To me, it's wrong, and here's all my reasons why.

I honestly don't think anyone here has said "Yes, it's ok to marry a child to an old fart." I think we're all in agreement, we think it's wrong.

Everything else is just explanation, exposition, and what not.

(Added)
Though, there is something to the idea that we're genetically attuned to protect kids.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 14, 2009)

and therein lies the issue, at least MY issue anyway.

WHY does anyone need to add on an "explanation, exposition, and what not."???

Why the need to add conditional modifiers?

Why not just say "thats wrong"?

Now, just to show that my knee wasnt jerking, wanna guess why i objected to this particular case?

If it was an arranged marraige between two 8 year olds, i wouldnt mind that much, since arranged marraige, while not for me, isnt essentially bad.

it was the fact that 8 year old was more or less SOLD to a 47 year old dude.

And hey, i like to dog on christianity just as much as I do any other group. Catholics in particular, i love asking them how they feel about what happened to the Aztecs.....


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 14, 2009)

Raise your hand if you support child molestation....anyone? Didn't think so. 

There's obviously cultural and ethical differences between our two societies; however, applying logic and reason I can find no acceptable excuse to support the "selling" of one human being to another. Especially when it results in violating what should be considered the basic rights of a child who lacks the emotional, not to mention physical, development to fullfill the role of a "wife." 

No matter how many ways you look at this; it is wrong. 

...but what can be done? Diplomatic pressure? Doubtful that would work or even be worth the effort to our government. 

Physical force? By who? You gonna hire a merc team to go in and rescue her? If you did who's to say she wouldn't be pissed? She is a product of that society after all and may actually accept her circumstances!! Besides, do you have the money to hire them? I don't.....

So....what's the plan?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2009)

My plan is to argue more protection here, and let the Saudi's sort it out themselves.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 14, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> My plan is to argue more protection here, and let the Saudi's sort it out themselves.


 

...I don't know....

Do you think a country-sized sheet of glass would be a cool landmark? Ya know...kinda like the Great Wall or the Pyramids...

That would probably reflect heat really bad though, and contribute to global warming....

Oh well...so much for that plan. :moon:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2009)

I'll let Al Gore handle the global warming issue.


----------



## Scott T (Apr 14, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> and therein lies the issue, at least MY issue anyway.
> 
> WHY does anyone need to add on an "explanation, exposition, and what not."???
> 
> ...


Because people need qualifiers to make a decision in this grey world. As you have just proven with this:



> If it was an arranged marraige between two 8 year olds, i wouldnt mind that much, since arranged marraige, while not for me, isnt essentially bad.


You completely reversed prior _apparent_ denunciation of all arranged marriages on the thread by placing qualifying conditions where arranged marriages aren't evil, while earlier you were accusing others of  'moral relativism'.

Now that you added this last part, your position is a hell of a lot easier to understand.

That's why 'Just because' is a dangerous rationalization...


			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> "Just because" pissed me off when my mother said it, and it pisses me off now. No, strike that. It just annoys me.


 You too, huh.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 14, 2009)

If you cant see the difference between an arranged marriage between children and selling an 8yo to a 40+ yo man to repay a debt...well I dont know how we can discuss the issue.


----------



## Scott T (Apr 14, 2009)

In a written medium, where you can't hear inflections and see body language, it's dangerous to assume meaning in a position that is unclear.

Now that Twin Fist made his position clear with his caveat rather than his former apparent position of being against all arranged marriages 'Just because', I can honestly say that I agree with him and his position 100%.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 14, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> ...I don't know....
> 
> Do you think a country-sized sheet of glass would be a cool landmark? Ya know...kinda like the Great Wall or the Pyramids...
> 
> ...


 
Okay, who leaked the Beardmore Plan?! :lol:. 

In my much younger, more reactionary and less compassionate days, when I hadn't fully learned just how interlinked and complicated things are, I used to, every now and then, trot out the (not serious) idea that a lot of the worlds political and religious conflicts would be eased by a rolling nuclear barrage across most of Africa and the Middle East. 

The banner line "Nuke the Middle East into a sea of glass - we can still get at the oil when it's all cooled down some!" used to spark some very revealing discussions and arguments.

Amongst these discourses what was often raised was that the people of those nations are just as human as we are and are no more culpable than we in the way that their countries politics and religions are structured. If they weren't sitting on top of a mass of oil that is of economic interest to other nations then they wouldn't have become the focus of the turmoil they have - indeed they wouldn't have become countries if it wasn't for our (the British) involvement.

Some of the counters to this ran similar to some things we've read in this thread so far i.e. that they don't think like us/they have no sense of honour/they have no sense of morality/their religion makes them hate all who do not follow their faith ...

Now I'm talking about debates amidst well educated people (my class mates during my first foray into university-land) being carried out in the early '80's - some whilst the Falklands war was on and some when one of my class-mates had been recalled back to Israel to retake his position as a tank commander.

It is distressing that the same problems of distrust and hatred are still there thirty years on. Likewise, it is distressing that there is no sign that the country that is the specific target of the OP has yet reached it's equivalent of the Enlightenment. 

Until it does, all our outrage at what goes on under their laws, inside their borders, will make little difference. After all, they know they have something we want and that makes them fairly immune to pressure to change their culture to suit us. Which is a great pity as, from what I have read of that country and the way that daily life is conducted, it is one that we should be ashamed to count as an ally.

After all, the arranged (hopefully non-consummated) marriage of a little girl, against the wishes of her mother, is just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Carol (Apr 14, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Bob,
> YOu asked "where is the outrage over child brodes in india"
> I have a problem with forced marraige of a child, WHERE EVER it happens, but this article wasnt about india or thailand. It was about an incident in Saudi. So THAT particular incident is being expressed.



The story also has the legs that it does because of where it happened, and all the current event connections to it - terror, dependence on foreign oil, etc.   I don't think its just the Islamic slant to the story...had something like this occurred amongst the Muslims in (say) Suriname -  I'm not sure if this would have even made the U.S. media.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 14, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Okay, who leaked the Beardmore Plan?! :lol:.
> 
> In my much younger, more reactionary and less compassionate days, when I hadn't fully learned just how interlinked and complicated things are, I used to, every now and then, trot out the (not serious) idea that a lot of the worlds political and religious conflicts would be eased by a rolling nuclear barrage across most of Africa and the Middle East.
> 
> ...


 
I suppose that whole "inability to denote inflections and body language" thing resulted in the loss of "sarcasm" in my post. LOL  



Carol Kaur said:


> The story also has the legs that it does because of where it happened, and all the current event connections to it - terror, dependence on foreign oil, etc. I don't think its just the Islamic slant to the story...had something like this occurred amongst the Muslims in (say) Suriname - I'm not sure if this would have even made the U.S. media.


 
I'm sure it happens a lot and "yes" is probably rarely reported....kinda like that whole female castration thing. (fyi: more sarcasm to denote the ridiculousnous of the priorities of Western Foreign Policy)


----------



## Scott T (Apr 14, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I suppose that whole "inability to denote inflections and body language" thing resulted in the loss of "sarcasm" in my post. LOL



That little mooney smilie should have been a good clue...

:lol:


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 14, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I suppose that whole "inability to denote inflections and body language" thing resulted in the loss of "sarcasm" in my post. LOL


 
  Not at all, *CC* ... hey, I'm English remember?  We turned sarcasm into an assassins art centuries ago :lol:.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 14, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Not at all, *CC* ... hey, I'm English remember?  We turned sarcasm into an assassins art centuries ago :lol:.



I thought you guys were all Dry Wit, Pip Pip Cheerio, Penfold and Dangermouse, you know old chap...


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2009)

Was that Sukerkin Blackadder's voice I just heard?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2009)

arnisador said:


> was that sukerkin blackadder's voice i just heard?


roflmao!!!!


----------



## blindsage (Apr 14, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Come on, just TRY it, it isnt hard:
> 
> "thats wrong, period"
> 
> no buts, no conditional modifiers, no putting it in context, just say it is wrong, if you are capable of it


 
Child marriage is wrong, period. Invading other countries because of different values is wrong, period. Condemning other religions with a less than half-*** knowledge of them is wrong, period. A large percentage of the time Twin Fist is wrong, period.

Hmmm, that was easy.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 14, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> I think people have the right to bash radical Islam. I wouldn't minds as much if Islamic clerics spoke out against such violence, but they don't, and all we hear about from the media is how bad the US is for dunking a few of these idiots upside down in a bath in Guantanamo bay and playing loud hair metal music to torture them.


 
What incentive does Western media have to show moderate Muslims, clerics or civilians?  Do calm, peaceful, rational people make good news?  Do you speak Arabic, or Persian?  Do you watch media in their language?  Hell, do you ever check out Aljazeera's english broadcasts?  We only here what our media presents, assuming that is the whole story is willful blindness.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 14, 2009)

well, YOU just broke the rules




blindsage said:


> Child marriage is wrong, period. Invading other countries because of different values is wrong, period. Condemning other religions with a less than half-*** knowledge of them is wrong, period. A large percentage of the time Twin Fist is wrong, period.
> 
> Hmmm, that was easy.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 14, 2009)

blindsage said:


> What incentive does Western media have to show moderate Muslims, clerics or civilians?  Do calm, peaceful, rational people make good news?  Do you speak Arabic, or Persian?  Do you watch media in their language?  Hell, do you ever check out Aljazeera's english broadcasts?  We only here what our media presents, assuming that is the whole story is willful blindness.



Granted. Do you have any examples of Islamic media or politicians condemning radical Islamic violence or terrorist organizations?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 14, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Granted. Do you have any examples of Islamic media or politicians condemning radical Islamic violence or terrorist organizations?



How many would you like?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...EQG126C_fA0B11Aqw&sig2=mYoKhr_7LdbGDrqQ3Grv_g

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...hZ0EH7PTmvoBMs4KQ&sig2=0NsozmWKh7IPkK1acBxRbg

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...N5-f6tjkqDFC1Sy0A&sig2=IHRQXkPNC3d_m-hnQ0Jdug

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...mRNdlG7lJjwYsF4vw&sig2=PxcTnxu2cVrhShfrzwwRVg

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...aCZ3BSg5TV0B3wDAQ&sig2=_ZG16t_9_b6vfYkRazRaAQ

And etc...


----------



## blindsage (Apr 14, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> well, YOU just broke the rules


 
You are right.  I apologize to you and the forum.  

Now, YOU need to recognize that comments like 


			
				Twin Fist said:
			
		

> no buts, no conditional modifiers, no putting it in context, just say it is wrong, *if you are capable of it*


 are just as rude, insulting and unnacceptable.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 14, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Granted. Do you have any examples of Islamic media or politicians condemning radical Islamic violence or terrorist organizations?


 


THe Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia condemned *all* acts of terrorism in 2005:



> *"Such acts run counter to the teachings of Islam.''* He went on to state: "God Almighty has decreed that people adhere to the principle of justice because heaven and earth are based on justice, and He sent his messengers to advocate for justice, and the Holy Qur'an underscores the importance of following the path of justice in this world. And it is clear that to hold someone responsible for a crime committed by another, is not just." He added:* "Enmity and hatred do not justify aggression or injustice."*


 
The Council on American Islamic Relations has run numerous public info spots, and links to numerous condemnations of radical Islamic violence and terrorism in the media.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 14, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Granted. Do you have any examples of Islamic media or politicians condemning radical Islamic violence or terrorist organizations?


 
Thanks to Bill, there are plenty of links for you to check out. I would also recommend Aljazeera's website just about any day of the week to find other perspectives on what's going on in the Middle East, http://english.aljazeera.net/.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2009)

Folks, lets stick to the matter at hand and leave the digs out, mk?


----------



## elder999 (Apr 14, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Folks, lets stick to the matter at hand and leave the digs out, mk?


 

How's this:



elder999 said:


> THe Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia condemned *all* acts of terrorism in 2005:


 
"_He's like the *Pope*_" :lfao:

.....sorry, couldn't resist......:lfao:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2009)

elder999 said:


> How's this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sorry...i'm really really sorry....but the first thing that came to me was that robot dog from the original BattleStar Galactica series.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 14, 2009)

speaking of which elder, the link is from 2001, not 2005, as you posted

oh, BTW- you seem to have developed an un-healthy man crush on me. please dont. I am still scarred from the last one


----------



## elder999 (Apr 14, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> speaking of which elder, the link is from 2001, not 2005, as you posted


 
Even better, I suppose......



Twin Fist said:


> oh, BTW- you seem to have developed an un-healthy man crush on me. please dont. I am still scarred from the last one


 
Stop playing coy, TF-I know how you Navy guys are. :wink: All that flirting with Carol is just a front (sorry, Carol-it's true!)

Don't worry, big boy, I'll be gentle..:lfao:


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 14, 2009)

elder9
 
Me said:
			
		

> 11th Commandment[/i]:
> 
> *Thou shalt mind thine own business.*


I think you are absolutely right. We should all mind our own business. When Germany annexed Poland in 1939, we should have just turned away. Millions of jews, dying in death camps around Eastern Europe-who cares? It's not our problem. Hundreds of thousands of kurds, mutilated and murdered by Saddam Hussein's goons-it's just their way of doing things, just let it happen.

This is my take on things. The people of the United States give more aid, in the shape of money and food to developing countries, including islamic nations than any other country on this Earth. In the most part we teach tolerance and there is not a single muslim who cannot practice his or her faith here, in safety, without the government arresting them. How do I know this to be fact, because more and more people of different faiths line up to come to the US every year, for the chance of constitutional protections and a decent life. On the other hand, if any of us go to Tehran and open an evangelical christian church, just see what happens.

I lived in the city of York in North Yorkshire in 1989, when islamic fundamentalists blew up the penguin bookstore on a busy spring Saturday afternoon. The bookstore had stocked "The Satanic Verses", so these islamic dogs decided to target high school kids, whose only crime was having a weekend job to put towards college life.

I don't consider it hypocritical for me to condemn radical islam for it's violent crimes and it's crimes against young girls. If you want to start a thread about Dr Tiller the baby killer in Kansas, who performs partial birth abortions on babies viable outside the womb for a one time fee of $5000, i'll speak out about that. If you want to start a thread about activist judges like Edward Cashman in Vermont who was prepared to give 90 days in jail and 10 years of probation to a nonse who raped a young girl repeatedly for 6 years from the age of 4 to 10, i'll speak out about that too. Being a non-practising catholic, i'll also speak out about the years of sexual abuse that has been hushed up in the church, and how i'd love to see Cardinals Law and Mahoney locked away in prison along with Benedict for hushing the whole thing up.

I'm not going to give radical islam a pass, because of political correctness or because child abuse is just part of their culture and therefore should be accepted.

Whoa-that felt good. I'm gonna get up now and take a cold shower.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Apr 14, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Shouldn't we fix our own issues before we condemn someone else for theirs?


 
Y'see, Bob, raising hell over the grave sins of other people makes it very easy to ignore the sick crap that's done in one's own neighborhood.  

And before anyone says it, NO, I'm not saying I agree with an 8-year-old being married.  But I would like to point out that if you just read the first page or two of this thread, you'd think that she was being raped by her new husband the day after getting wedded.  

Before we get off (no pun intended) on these tangents of moral relativism and child mutilation and Christian vs. Islamic, let's be sure we're all on the same page of WHAT exactly this thread is even ABOUT.  

An 8-year-old girl was legally forced into a marriage, despite her and her mother's objections, through a court-approved process.  She maintains the right to annul before reaching age of consent, and (as far as the discussion's shown), hasn't actually been touched by the husband.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 14, 2009)

uh, Hoss?
I was in teh service for 12 years, i doubt i will be any good to you......


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2009)

As much as I support same gender games, y'all get a private room, mk? thanx.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 14, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> I think you are absolutely right. We should all mind our own business. When Germany annexed Poland in 1939, we should have just turned away.


 
Er, we did. "I have in my hand a piece of paper" ring any bells?



yorkshirelad said:


> Millions of jews, dying in death camps around Eastern Europe-who cares?


 
Er, noone knew.



yorkshirelad said:


> It's not our problem. Hundreds of thousands of kurds, mutilated and murdered by Saddam Hussein's goons-it's just their way of doing things, just let it happen.


 
And the invasion was just so much better. Plus, who hung the Kurds out to dry after promising to aid and protect them?



yorkshirelad said:


> This is my take on things. The people of the United States give more aid, in the shape of money and food to developing countries, including islamic nations than any other country on this Earth.


 
Because they extract more than any other nation on earth through unequal economic trade.



yorkshirelad said:


> In the most part we teach tolerance and there is not a single muslim who cannot practice his or her faith here, in safety, without the government arresting them. How do I know this to be fact, because more and more people of different faiths line up to come to the US every year, for the chance of constitutional protections and a decent life. On the other hand, if any of us go to Tehran and open an evangelical christian church, just see what happens.


 
Now that has a semblance of reality to it.



yorkshirelad said:


> I lived in the city of York in North Yorkshire in 1989, when islamic fundamentalists blew up the penguin bookstore on a busy spring Saturday afternoon. The bookstore had stocked "The Satanic Verses", so these islamic dogs decided to target high school kids, whose only crime was having a weekend job to put towards college life.


 
Aye I had forgotten that, amongst other such attacks:

"The years following the fatwa were also a damaging and sometimes lethal period for many of those associated with The Satanic Verses, few of whom had any protection. In April 1989 Collets, the left-wing bookshop, and Dillons were firebombed for stocking the Rushdie novel. A month later there were explosions in High Wycombe and London's King's Road. There was a bomb in the Liberty department store which housed a Penguin Bookshop (Penguin was the publisher of The Satanic Verses) and at the York Penguin bookshop. Unexploded devices were also discovered at the Nottingham, Guildford and Peterborough branches of the store." 



yorkshirelad said:


> I don't consider it hypocritical for me to condemn radical islam for it's violent crimes and it's crimes against young girls.
> 
> {snip}
> 
> I'm not going to give radical islam a pass, because of political correctness or because child abuse is just part of their culture and therefore should be accepted.


 
I don't think anyone here has not been condemnatory of the idea of using a child as financial collateral nor is not likewise condemnatory of the essential concept of religion being used as a rationale for violence or oppression. We have more than enough experience of that in our own history without condoning more of it in the present.

However, it is not "political correctness" or giving "Islam a pass", it is political expediency that governs how the world turns.

We can froth and judge and feel comforted by same but it won't change anything until such time as it is no longer expedient to turn a blind eye to such things from a useful toehold in a valuable area of the world.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 14, 2009)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> An 8-year-old girl was legally forced into a marriage, despite her and her mother's objections, through a court-approved process. She maintains the right to annul before reaching age of consent, and (as far as the discussion's shown), hasn't actually been touched by the husband.


Her mother doesn't want it, she doesn't want it, but the judge says it's gonna happen and the girl belongs to the guy until she reaches the age of consent. Call me old fashioned, but isn't this wrong? Just because the guy hasn't reportedly touched her doesn't mean that this isn't wrong. The judge has decided that the girl will be payment for a debt, isn't this tantamount to slavery. I just wouldn't like to think that anyone here is ok with slavery and child abuse, just because it is happening in another part of the world.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 14, 2009)

Exactly.  That's the issue.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 14, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Er, we did. "I have in my hand a piece of paper" ring any bells?
> Yes, you have a point, but we did stand up to the forces of nazi-ism and it's ideology.
> 
> 
> ...


 
Sadly true.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 14, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Er, we did. "I have in my hand a piece of paper" ring any bells?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I seem to have imposed my words into Sukerkin's quote. Sorry about that, but I'm still a little computer phobic.and don't know how to intersperse the quotes of others within my own text.

There goes the blue bus..excuse me while I catch it.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 14, 2009)

Sukerkin,
Just a side note, aren't you in England right now. It's almost 3am GMT. I hear camomile is a good sleep aid.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 14, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> I think you are absolutely right. We should all mind our own business.
> 
> I'm not going to give radical islam a pass, because of political correctness or because child abuse is just part of their culture and therefore should be accepted.


 
I'm not talking about giving radical Islam a pass, and I despise political correctness. In the first place, the whole child marriage thing has been going on for a long time in that country-as Twin Fist is fond of pointing out, the Prophet Mohammad (blessed be his name) wed a child more than a thousand years ago-long before "radical Islam"  or Wahabism existed-though some would argue that the whole thing has been radical from the start. As I also pointed out, the chief cleric of Saudi Arabia-the man who ultimately lays down the rules for interpretation of Sharia law that led to the decision in question-has condemned terrorism.

I'd also add that "radical Islam," the terrorists, whatever, are as guilty of violation of the 11th commandment as anyone, even more so, and that their actions make them _our business._ Where do we draw the line about that, though? Do we say, _Oh goodness, they're terrible people, bargaining away children into marriage for money-*we've got to stop it so they stop blowing things up!*_, or is that a case of apples and oranges?  The law in their country is the law in their country, and thankfully, as much as some of them might like to make it so, it will never be the law in mine.

"These people need to enter the 21st century," some will say, and I think they'd be right.Problem is, though, such things-like _democracy_ have to come from _within_-they arise from the people, and can't be forced upon them. To attempt to do so diverts energy from battles that *have* to be fought, does nothing to foster any kind of understanding, and _ultimately lead to failure._




yorkshirelad said:


> IThere goes the blue bus..excuse me while I catch it.


 
'zat anything like a "little bus?" :lfao:


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2009)

elder999 said:


> "These people need to enter the 21st century," some will say, and I think they'd be right.Problem is, though, such things-like _democracy_ have to come from _within_-they arise from the people, and can't be forced upon them.



Are you criticizing the wonderful job done by the Europeans in Africa?

(_Of course_ I'm being sarcastic. Sheesh!)


----------



## elder999 (Apr 14, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Are you criticizing the wonderful job done by the Europeans in Africa?
> 
> (_Of course_ I'm being sarcastic. Sheesh!)


 
No, I was just stating a fact-the flashlight beam of which can be shone on any number of places and attempts at "social engineering".......kinda gotta wonder where the state of Iraq's "democracy" will be in 20 years time, with or without our continued interf-er-_assistance_.(_Of course_ I'm being sarcastic, at all!.Sheesh!)


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 14, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Sukerkin,
> Just a side note, aren't you in England right now. It's almost 3am GMT. I hear camomile is a good sleep aid.


 

  I have ever been a 'vampire', tho' nowadays I find my aging body cannot support such sleep habits well .  Four or five hours a night no longer suffices it seems .


----------



## elder999 (Apr 14, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I have ever been a 'vampire', tho' nowadays I find my aging body cannot support such sleep habits well . Four or five hours a night no longer suffices it seems .


 

Bet you feel a bit of tightness at the back of the neck every now and then, too?


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 14, 2009)

Aye? I have put that down to a lasting legacy of the spinal compression from my bike accident. Is there another explanation (real or comedic (e.g. hanging upside down to sleep a la a bat ))?


----------



## elder999 (Apr 14, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Aye? . Is there another explanation ?


 
Yeah.....:lfao:......it's _......:lfao:......old age *gettin' a grip on ya!*_. :lfao: :lfao: :lfao:

(Started having the exact same sort of symptoms myself, not too long ago....:lfao: )


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 14, 2009)

elder999 said:


> 'zat anything like a "little bus?" :lfao:


Same thing, it comes every morning, but I have to put my helmet on before I get on the bloody thing.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 15, 2009)

We talk about a lot of things in this forum that we can do nothing about. 

Why should this one be any different?

But that still doesn't mean that we can't discuss it.  Hopefully civilly.


----------



## Carol (Apr 15, 2009)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> An 8-year-old girl was legally forced into a marriage, despite her and her mother's objections, through a court-approved process.  She maintains the right to annul before reaching age of consent, and (as far as the discussion's shown), hasn't actually been touched by the husband.



She maintains the right to divorce.  It won't be easy.  It won't be cheap.  It will be a logistical nightmare under the current laws that forbid women from driving or hailing a cab.  Her husband can turn her life in to an even bigger hell if she tries.  And her chances of finding a young fellow her own age and in tune with her likes and interests have tanked because even if she does managed to do to pull off the divorce, she will still be an 18 (or so) year old divorcee....and far less desirable to the families that waited until their sons came of age to see if they could find a match with a family that wants something similar for their daughter.


----------



## Carol (Apr 15, 2009)

Double post...apologies


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 15, 2009)

blindsage said:


> What incentive does Western media have to show moderate Muslims, clerics or civilians? Do calm, peaceful, rational people make good news? Do you speak Arabic, or Persian? Do you watch media in their language? Hell, do you ever check out Aljazeera's english broadcasts? We only here what our media presents, assuming that is the whole story is willful blindness.


Good point. I actually do watch Aljazeera from time to time and they don't change my view of the islamic world.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 15, 2009)

Watching Aljazeera, I feel, just gives me another perspective to view things in. It probably wouldn't just blatantly change your view of the muslim world, but it does inform the one you have. The other question would be do you have any Muslim friends you speak to regularly be they Arab, Persian, Turkish, Indonesian, Philipino, Nigerian, Chinese, Uzbeki, Kurdish, Serbian, African American or otherwise?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 16, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Watching Aljazeera, I feel, just gives me another perspective to view things in. It probably wouldn't just blatantly change your view of the muslim world, but it does inform the one you have. The other question would be do you have any Muslim friends you speak to regularly be they Arab, Persian, Turkish, Indonesian, Philipino, Nigerian, Chinese, Uzbeki, Kurdish, Serbian, African American or otherwise?


I was born in West Yorkshire and raised in both West and North Yorkshire. Many of the kids in my school were of Middle Eastern origin and all of the middle eastern kids were islamic. Some of them were friends and some of them were bitter enemies. Leeds is heavily islamic, if you go to Harehills or Chapeltown you won't see many people of Anglo origin. So yes, I have experience of islamic culture. By the way, I have been very careful in refering to my distaste of "radical" islam and not islam in general. I also have distaste for any religious and non-religious fanatical groups that kill people, including the christian fanatics who blow up abortion clinics and federal buildings and the one in the North of Ireland who blew up the Main street of Omagh in 1996.That being said, 'radical' muslims hate our way of life and their only answer is to destroy us.
By the way, my wife's father is of Turkish origin and my Hapkido teacher of years in Dublin, who was a great influence in my life is islamic and Persian. So please believe me, I don't write blindly.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Apr 16, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> She maintains the right to divorce. It won't be easy. It won't be cheap. It will be a logistical nightmare under the current laws that forbid women from driving or hailing a cab. Her husband can turn her life in to an even bigger hell if she tries. And her chances of finding a young fellow her own age and in tune with her likes and interests have tanked because even if she does managed to do to pull off the divorce, she will still be an 18 (or so) year old divorcee....and far less desirable to the families that waited until their sons came of age to see if they could find a match with a family that wants something similar for their daughter.


 
I agree, and I hope nobody took my post as an endorsement of how things happened, because it's not.  I just meant to point out that child molestation and abuse are not (as far as the discussion's gone) part of the discussion yet.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 16, 2009)

There are also several movements in Saudi Arabia right now looking to change the system, from within.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> There are also several movements in Saudi Arabia right now looking to change the system, from within.


 
Which is the only way it could-_or should_-happen.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Apr 16, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Which is the only way it could-_or should_-happen.


 
It's certainly the ideal way that such social changes happen, but I'm quite certain that it won't always be the case.  Some institutions are so well ingrained that nothing short of war or revolution will change them. 

The question this threa's been dancing around for...what, 12 pages now?...is when is an outside force justified to come in and start enforcing such change.  I would agree that to just "drag them into the 21st century kicking and screaming" qualifies as a crusade, no matter how unjust their actions are.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 16, 2009)

How would it feel if they decided to do the same to us, to "correct" our viewpoint?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> How would it feel if [someone] decided to do the same to us, to "correct" our viewpoint?



Like our views on restricting abortion rights, limited health care for the unemployed, the acceptability of poverty and ghettos,...


----------



## blindsage (Apr 16, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> I was born in West Yorkshire and raised in both West and North Yorkshire. Many of the kids in my school were of Middle Eastern origin and all of the middle eastern kids were islamic. Some of them were friends and some of them were bitter enemies. Leeds is heavily islamic, if you go to Harehills or Chapeltown you won't see many people of Anglo origin. So yes, I have experience of islamic culture. By the way, I have been very careful in refering to my distaste of "radical" islam and not islam in general. I also have distaste for any religious and non-religious fanatical groups that kill people, including the christian fanatics who blow up abortion clinics and federal buildings and the one in the North of Ireland who blew up the Main street of Omagh in 1996.That being said, 'radical' muslims hate our way of life and their only answer is to destroy us.
> By the way, my wife's father is of Turkish origin and my Hapkido teacher of years in Dublin, who was a great influence in my life is islamic and Persian. So please believe me, I don't write blindly.


 
I'm not assuming you write blindly, but our original exchange had to do with how you don't see anything in the media about any clerics condemning the actions of radical Muslims. And my response basically had to do with checking other sources than just what we see in our media. I've noticed that you qualify all your statements by saying 'radical Islam' and not just a condemnation of Islam across the board to your credit, so my point was that if you look at sources other than our media, which you seem exposed to, what do you see and hear? Every Muslim that I've ever spoken to about these issues condemns the actions of radical Muslims. Most disagree with Wahhabism. Even the more conservative, traditionally educated Muslim friends I've known condemn these as against Islam, and as others have shown, terrorism in the name of Islam has been condemned by numerous Muslims leaders.


----------



## girlbug2 (Apr 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Like our views on restricting abortion rights, limited health care for the unemployed, the acceptability of poverty and ghettos,...


 
If a middle eastern country such as Afghanistan tried to "correct" these things in our country, it would be toward _eliminating_ abortion rights altogether, doing away with health care for the unemployed and making ghettos and poverty _more_ acceptable...after all, that's pretty much what they have over there right now.

Or were you being ironic?


----------



## elder999 (Apr 16, 2009)

girlbug2 said:


> If a middle eastern country such as Afghanistan tried to "correct" these things in our country, it would be toward _eliminating_ abortion rights altogether, doing away with health care for the unemployed and making ghettos and poverty _more_ acceptable...after all, that's pretty much what they have over there right now.
> 
> Or were you being ironic?


 
Let me try to clarify:



Bob Hubbard said:


> How would it feel if *they decided* to do the same to us, *to "correct" our viewpoint*?


 
It would feel a lot like jetliners flying into skyscrapers 8 years ago.


----------



## kaizasosei (Apr 16, 2009)

I still think that an 8 year old that is sollicited into an adult relationship is being robbed of the right to be a child and discover and choose their own path.
I don't think it is right.  I can't imagine any sane mature man being intellectualy satisfied with an eight year old wife- unless of course, the mofo has 20 other wives of varying age.  
Basically, i bet that these kinds of people who marry kids are freaks even in their own cultures-it is shocking to see that such actions can be deemed legal.  But on the other hand, you'll find such perversions in western cultures as well-albeit far more concealed.  Like the freaks that lock up their daughters and make babies with them or lock up young girls(and they don't even get publicly hanged or castrated!!).  Even rich people in western societies that are so blasted rich and powerful that they get away with crimes that may be seen as even more dispicable as the aforementioned unholy marriage.

j


----------



## blindsage (Apr 16, 2009)

kaizasosei said:


> I still think that an 8 year old that is sollicited into an adult relationship is being robbed of the right to be a child and discover and choose their own path.
> I don't think it is right. I can't imagine any sane mature man being intellectualy satisfied with an eight year old wife- unless of course, the mofo has 20 other wives of varying age.
> Basically, i bet that these kinds of people who marry kids are freaks even in their own cultures-it is shocking to see that such actions can be deemed legal. But on the other hand, you'll find such perversions in western cultures as well-albeit far more concealed. Like the freaks that lock up their daughters and make babies with them or lock up young girls(and they don't even get publicly hanged or castrated!!). Even rich people in western societies that are so blasted rich and powerful that they get away with crimes that may be seen as even more dispicable as the aforementioned unholy marriage.
> 
> j


 
I do not condone child marriage in any way, shape, or form, but it seems like you didn't read all the posts here.  The girl is not going to live with the husband until she is much older, and the marriage will not be consummated until then.  Child bribes around the world are not that uncommon, and generally it is considered acceptable where it occurs.  

In addition marriage for love, or romance, or for finding an intellectual satisfiying partner is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history, it is not what marriage is based on in most societies.

Note, again, for the selective readers here, I do not condone child marriage in any form, and I *do* believe that marriage should be about love and partnership.


----------



## kaizasosei (Apr 16, 2009)

Sorry about that, i will backtrack to inform myself better. 


Still almost just as messed up if not even more devious.  Although it is at least good to know that there is no kid getting molested in the name of marriage.





j


----------



## Carol (Apr 16, 2009)

blindsage said:


> I'm not assuming you write blindly, but our original exchange had to do with how you don't see anything in the media about any clerics condemning the actions of radical Muslims. And my response basically had to do with checking other sources than just what we see in our media. I've noticed that you qualify all your statements by saying 'radical Islam' and not just a condemnation of Islam across the board to your credit, so my point was that if you look at sources other than our media, which you seem exposed to, what do you see and hear? Every Muslim that I've ever spoken to about these issues condemns the actions of radical Muslims. Most disagree with Wahhabism. Even the more conservative, traditionally educated Muslim friends I've known condemn these as against Islam, and as others have shown, terrorism in the name of Islam has been condemned by numerous Muslims leaders.


 
Blindsage...please pardon me butting in  are you sure that you are referring to Yorkshire Lad?    

(It was Archangel that was originally asking about condemnation by Islamic establishemnts)


----------



## Carol (Apr 16, 2009)

kaizasosei said:


> Sorry about that, i will backtrack to inform myself better.
> 
> 
> Still almost just as messed up if not even more devious.  Although it is at least good to know that there is no kid getting molested in the name of marriage.



The issue isn't deviousness.  Ultimately it is poverty, a lack of education, and the forceful nature of Wahab'iism that keeping much of the Saudi citizenry in cycles of poverty.

Its easy to paint a culture that we do not agree with as being replete with these evil horrible monsters.  But please think about this question...what sane parent truly wants to sell their kid?    Saudi parents love their children, and want the best for them.  

Saudi Arabia may have oil, but the wealth is controlled by a few select families.  Many in the citizenry are uneducated and in poverty.   The original article states that the arrangement was made because the family was buried in debt.  

At the heart of the father's decision was most likely a desperate hope for his daughter to have a better life.  Arranged marriages are the way of the land there and they are not as evil or punitive as the western media makes them out to be (but that's a topic for another day).  

It is most likely that the father is the breadwinner of the family, and he likely realized that 10 years from now, they will still be a devastatingly  poor family and that the most likely match for his daughter will be a devastatingly poor man.  Making the arrangements for her to marry his wealthy (or at least, wealthier) creditor may have been the only realistic way he saw to break the oppressive cycle of poverty that their family is in.

I do think the choice is wrong.  (For that matter, Saudis would typically think my choice of not having children and getting divorced is also wrong).   But the reason behind this father's decision isn't because Islam is and wants child molesters.   Its the oppressive nature of the powerful fundamentalists that are unwilling to give up their control, and the radical extremists that choose to force their will with violence.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 16, 2009)

girlbug2 said:


> If a middle eastern country such as Afghanistan tried to "correct" these things in our country, it would be toward _eliminating_ abortion rights altogether, doing away with health care for the unemployed and making ghettos and poverty _more_ acceptable...after all, that's pretty much what they have over there right now.
> 
> Or were you being ironic?



No, I was speaking more generally of things some other country might like to correct about us. The Soviet Union used to harp on several of those things, for example.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 17, 2009)

Carol, this is the quote that started our exchange, from page 6 I believe.



yorkshirelad said:


> I wouldn't minds as much if Islamic clerics spoke out against such violence, but they don't, and all we hear about from the media is how bad the US is for dunking a few of these idiots upside down in a bath in Guantanamo bay and playing loud hair metal music to torture them.


 
But thanks for keeping me honest.


----------



## Carol (Apr 17, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Carol, this is the quote that started our exchange, from page 6 I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> But thanks for keeping me honest.



Ahhh OK.  Sorry about that...  Thanks for keeping me honest too.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 17, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Ahhh OK. Sorry about that... Thanks for keeping me honest too.


And thanks to both of you for keeping me honest. You are absolutely correct Blindsage. I did say that I cannot find clerics in the Islamic world who are speaking out against the fanatics. The truth is, I have not been looking for them. It's easy to say "I can't find" when you really don't look. 

It really is amazing to me that three monotheistic religious philosophies can have so much hate toward eachother. Then for each of these philosophies to have sub-branches that also hate eachother. If we could somehow get Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad in a room together, I wonder how each of them would process the world we live in today?

What it boils down to is that there is one little girl in Saudi Arabia who is in for alot of heartache in the future and it's a shame.


----------



## Scott T (Apr 17, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> It really is amazing to me that three monotheistic religious philosophies can have so much hate toward eachother. Then for each of these philosophies to have sub-branches that also hate eachother. *If we could somehow get Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad in a room together, I wonder how each of them would process the world we live in today?*


I'd like to think they would publicly despise the stupidity of those followers who promote and thrive on that hate, myself.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 18, 2009)

"So Jesus, how 'bout them Crusades?"


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 18, 2009)

arnisador said:


> "So Jesus, how 'bout them Crusades?"


Jesus replies, "Don't blame me mate! If I'd have been in Jerusalem at the same time as the crusaders, they would have probably killed me too." 

Sad but true.


----------



## Scott T (Apr 18, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Jesus replies, "Don't blame me mate! If I'd have been in Jerusalem at the same time as the crusaders, they would have probably killed me too."
> 
> Sad but true.


LMAO! Oh, that is great!


----------



## Deaf Smith (Apr 18, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> It really is amazing to me that three monotheistic religious philosophies can have so much hate toward each other.


 
I don't know about all three. Christianity has changed alot in 2000 years. For the first several hundred it was one of love and forgiveness. The Church changed whole countries (even Rome.) It really is based on love. The &#8216;eye for an eye&#8217; is not in the New Testament.

But later, as the bureaucracy grew larger and larger, and the Muslim faith reared its head, the Church became more militaristic (and ironically more like they very thing they were against.) The Muslims, from day one, WERE militaristic (much like the Jews were for thousands of years.)

And thus we had a series of wars to control Jerusalem. And it wasn&#8217;t till the 17th century that the Church started to TRY to go back to the way Jesus taught (that is forgiveness and love.) 

Both the Muslim and the Jewish faiths do adhere to &#8216;eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth&#8221; and thus they war on each other incessantly. Their hate runs deep, on both sides, and they have a hard time getting rid of it. Anwar Sadat tried&#8230;. and died. Menachem Begin tried&#8230; and died. Those were two great leaders and peace makers. Note that the ones that murdered them were their own countrymen! Yes Muslims killed Sadat, and a Jewish extremists killed Begin!

We will not see peace in the Middle East till maybe 500 years. When, like the Hatfields and McCoys, they realize they don&#8217;t even remember how it started and why they are still killing each other.

But Christianity has grown up. Sure there are some bigots in it, but as a whole, it has grown up. It really is a religion of peace.

Deaf


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 18, 2009)

arnisador said:


> "So Jesus, how 'bout them Crusades?"


 
Hey. Your an American right?...how about what you did to those Native Americans and Slaves?

I tire of continuing to lay blame for the past on present institutions. Espically when there is nobody left living that could concieveably be held personally responsible.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 18, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> It really is a religion of peace.



Evidence to support this contention is lacking.



Archangel M said:


> Hey. Your an American right?...how about what you did to those Native Americans and Slaves?



Done by Christians and justified by Christianity (e.g., see Robert E. Lee's views on the matter of slavery). The fundamental intolerance of Christianity--believe as we believe or be tortured for all eternity in pits of fire--hasn't changed, to the best of my knowledge. It's that sense of moral superiority that was used to justify the actions motivated by greed.

Look at the indifference displayed by the Catholic Church to the suffering wrought by AIDS in Africa:
*Vatican decries reaction to pope's condom remarks*. 



> In a strongly worded statement, the Vatican defended the pope's view that condoms aren't the answer to Africa's AIDS epidemic and could make it worse. On his way to Africa last month, he said the best strategy is the church's effort to promote sexual responsibility through abstinence and monogamy.
> [...]
> France, Germany, the United Nations' AIDS-fighting agency and the British medical journal The Lancet called the remarks irresponsible and dangerous. The Belgian parliament passed a resolution calling them "unacceptable"



The Catholic Church has actually softened on science over the years as science has laid false many of its claims, but to discourage people from using condoms by claiming that they don't help and make things worse is downright malicious (and flatly contradicted by every study ever performed on the subject). It's one thing to say that good Catholics should not use condoms, but it's an altogether different matter to make a pronouncement on their effectiveness and claim they make things worse. If anyone relies on that advice and gets AIDS then perhaps they'll have grounds to sue the Church.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 18, 2009)

No, there is plenty, as in "a metric *** ton" of evidence that supports the claim that compared to islam and judaism, Christianity has in fact grown up.

some people may not have, but the FACT is that chrisitanity is by a large margin a force for good in the world. 

I wont guess why you refuse to see it, but i have an idea....



arnisador said:


> Evidence to support this contention is lacking.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 18, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> No, there is plenty, as in "a metric *** ton" of evidence that supports the claim that compared to islam and judaism, Christianity has in fact grown up.
> 
> some people may not have, but the FACT is that chrisitanity is by a large margin a force for good in the world.
> 
> I wont guess why you refuse to see it, but i have an idea....


 
It's because it supports their worldview. The same self-loathing, the sky is falling, defeatist worldview that we seem to have had since the 60's. 

Some seem to think that "things have gotten worse"..as in there was some golden age of peace that we have lost. 

Others seem to just enjoy wallowing in cynicism. 

Im a lapsed Catholic, but the few times that I do manage to make mass a year..I am always impressed with the message of peace and tolerance that I hear. People seem to equate not approving of some group or belief as "intollerance"...upon which I call BS. While issues like say abortion are obviously against the Churches doctrine, I have NEVER heard any sermon reccommending anything other than prayer for those who are considering it.

Now that I think of it..how many other mainstream religions preach outright violence anymore?


----------



## Carol (Apr 19, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Now that I think of it..how many other mainstream religions preach outright violence anymore?



They don't.  It's not religions that fail, its the people.  Why they fail is the tougher question.  But I'm pretty sure the answer isn't because Religion A is better than Religion B.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 19, 2009)

"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's charioteers ... AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." 
*Rev. Jerry Falwell

*"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up"
*Pat Robertson, on nuking the State Department*

 "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." 
*Pat Robertson, calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez


*I see a number of these so called "Christians" preaching hate, bigotry, murder, etc. I see them calling for camps, and making comically ignorant comments like that a good woman should be quiet, know her place and know who the man is. I can spend a few hours, comb the web and fill a few pages with quotes, and scriptural references, but I'd rather get some sleep.

I can also spend a few hours, find a good number of quotes from other Christian ministers (notice, no " here) preaching hope, peace, understanding, etc. You know, guys who _don't_ blame God having piss poor aim that requires him to wipe out whole cities to kill a few gays or Muslims. But again, I'd rather get some sleep.

Bottom line, there are extremist wack jobs in all religions who have their heads and their flocks up their ***. Someday, most people will grow beyond such stuff.  Until then, we argue.


----------



## Carol (Apr 19, 2009)

And there are plenty of people that have a leadership role in Christian organization that are committing violent crimes against other people.  I'm not even going to cite cases like the fringe nutjobs that perform violence at abortion clinics or the shameful acts that occurred in the Archdiocese of Boston (as well as other places).  

If one can accept that all Christians are not like the example below, then it shouldn't be too tough to accept that all Muslims are not like the examples in the media...even if Islam is not one's particular cup of tea.

And yes, I consider sex crimes to be violent, but I'm not sure other Americans do. Perhaps in the case of these alleged criminals, if the word "stab" or "shoot" was used instead of "sex" there would be more of an outcry.



April 6, 2009

http://coloradoindependent.com/2591...-older-guys-focus-employee-asked-teenage-girl



> &#8220;Do you like older guys?&#8221; a 42-year-old Colorado Springs man who listed his employer as evangelical ministry Focus on the Family asked 11 minutes after initiating contact in an Internet chat room with a girl he believed to be younger than 15, according to an arrest affidavit released Monday by the Jefferson County District Attorney&#8217;s Office...he was arrested on two felony counts in Lakewood after arranging to meet the girl for sex


December 3, 2008

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/stor...ted-For-Sex-Crime/LLDoYFdbeEefQf4B18_fuw.cspx


> A leader of a local Christian University is facing sex charges following an arrest at Mount Airy Forest Saturday morning.
> Police arrested Robert Williams and charged him with sexual imposition for allegedly grabbing an undercover officer in a sexual manner.


July 5, 2007

http://blog.nola.com/times-picayune/2007/07/associate_pastor_in_slidell_bo.html



> A volunteer associate pastor at Immanuel Baptist Church of Slidell was booked Tuesday on two counts of aggravated sex crimes involving juveniles and 47 counts of possession of child pornography, authorities said.


February 27, 2009 

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/browse_thread/thread/77f2ee3526a9db63



> A former chaplain in Rwanda's armed forces was sentenced
> today to 25 years for the abduction, murder and sexual
> assault of Tutsi civilians by the United Nations tribunal
> set up to deal with the mass killings that engulfed the
> tiny African country in 1994.


August 10, 2006

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=51719&category=22101


> Lou Beres, former executive director of the Oregon Christian Coalition and former chair of the Multnomah County Republican Party, confessed to police that he has sexually touched underage girls&#8212;including a young sister-in-law, according to a Gresham Police report dated September 13, 2005


----------



## kaizasosei (Apr 19, 2009)

This type of ****(examples) is probably just the tip of the iceberg.  Sleezy piece of ****(ignorant and false) scum like this is in position of power, religious power to top.  It is because *****(terrible monsters) like that are occupying the positions and blocking the way for the rightious, that the better people are forced into silence and being losers with hardly enough to feed themselves.  There must be someone that can see clearly and delicately weed out such grotesque leaders.  I mean, maybe maybe they have the stuff to help an old lady across the street, but what kind of real goodness can molesting unbelivers even do? Chances are, that it's not just cases of molestation, but every socalled good action and tip of the hat that comes from them is a drop of poison in the soup of society.  Too bad their just so ****in' crafty 



j


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 19, 2009)

It looks like we should all reflect on faith and try to understand how it has shaped our communities and our own personal outlook. Even those who lack faith in our society have been moulded into a Judeo/christian belief system. It's discouraging to see some of the hateful things written by the so called leaders in the 'christian' community, and therefore throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

I have to admit that I have had predudices that have been influenced by my quasi christian beliefs. I say "quasi" because I believe in God and the message of Jesus, but on my own terms and haven't for a long time picked up a Bible or gone to church for that matter.

This discussion has been a real eye opener and quite uncomfortable, because my so called 'traditional' views have been questioned and in some cases torn apart completely. I just think that people should just go back to basics. If a church leader expresses a view that is hateful and bigotted just look to the Bible for an answer. If the 2 don't connect...Hey presto.

I have been disillusioned with the Catholic church for years, due to the decades of sex crimes perpetrated against children. I've only been back for funerals. I don't however, believe that it is right to blame the Catholic church for the AIDS crises in Africa. I think it's too complicated a problem. There are many factors including; poverty, corrupt governments, misappropriation of aid, and personal responsibility to consider. The church always been philanthropic in the developing world and has alleveated much suffering.

When it comes down to it we should all take a piece of advice from the great Bard "Above all things, to thine own self be true."

Thanks for all the insight people, I've learned alot here.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 19, 2009)

> If a church leader expresses a view that is hateful and bigotted just look to the Bible for an answer. If the 2 don't connect...Hey presto.


And if the bibles answer is also hateful, rip that page out as well. It may be the "Word of God", but it was heard by human ears and transcribed by human hands, and man don't hear to well in my opinion. There's only 10 sentences in there that were written by the almighty.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 19, 2009)

Falwell and Robertson are to a Catholic as...well...Patrick Ewing is to baseball.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 19, 2009)

But both claim to be Christian.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 19, 2009)

Bob,
re-read what I wrote

PEOPLE may not have grown up

the religion HAS


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 19, 2009)

The People are the Religion. The books haven't been "updated". The sermons still refer to thousand year old dogma, from a different time, a different culture as justification for atrocities today. The only faith I believe updates their laws are the Jews.  But, this is digressing far from the original topic I think.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 19, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Im a lapsed Catholic, but the few times that I do manage to make mass a year..I am always impressed with the message of peace and tolerance that I hear. People seem to equate not approving of some group or belief as "intollerance"...



Well, what I see as the principal facet of intolerance her is the Christian position that those who believe differently will be tortured for all eternity for this thought crime. In some sects, the same happens to unbaptized children. That just doesn't seem very tolerant to me. Compare the Buddhists.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 19, 2009)

but they dont torture them here in the real world do they?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> but they dont torture them here in the real world do they?



Are we agreeing that it's all just a myth?


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 19, 2009)

thats pretty offensive


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 19, 2009)

Not if you read it as being the opinion expressed by a fellow member who thinks differently than yourself on the issue.  

Which is after all the ostensible point of the Study.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 19, 2009)

oh no worries Mark, i CANT be offended by cracks about religion, i dont take it that seriously.

some people do tho, and I imagine they might find that offensive.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> thats pretty offensive



Is my view that Christianity et al are myths less favoured than the view that Christianity is the one true religion?

I don't think it's offensive to use anthropologically correct language to describe religions as the creation myths they are scientifically considered to be.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 20, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> If we could somehow get Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad in a room together, I wonder how each of them would process the world we live in today?


It'd start with a few bro-hugs, then some head shaking over their 'followers'.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 30, 2009)

.





> CAIRO (AP) - An 8-year-old Saudi girl has divorced her middle-aged husband after  her father forced her to marry him last year in exchange for about $13,000, her  lawyer said Thursday. Saudi Arabia has come under increasing criticism at home and abroad for  permitting child marriages. The United States, a close ally of the conservative  Muslim kingdom, has called child marriage a "clear and unacceptable" violation  of human rights. The girl was allowed to divorce the 50-year-old man who she married in  August after an out-of-court settlement had been reached in the case, said her  lawyer, Abdulla al-Jeteli. The exact date of the divorce was not immediately  known.


[link]


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 30, 2009)

So, the girl was allowed to divorce. In other words, this guy, legally used the girl as leverage to get payment from her father. What next, will the Saudis have to hand their kids over to pay traffic tickets.

This girl's life has been compromized no end. When she eventually wants to get married, what does she say to her, would be husband? Oh, by the way honey, I was a divorcee at the age of 8.


----------



## Carol (Apr 30, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> So, the girl was allowed to divorce. In other words, this guy, legally used the girl as leverage to get payment from her father. What next, will the Saudis have to hand their kids over to pay traffic tickets.
> 
> This girl's life has been compromized no end. When she eventually wants to get married, what does she say to her, would be husband? Oh, by the way honey, I was a divorcee at the age of 8.



Yup.  An "innocent divorce" is often the term used by folks from the region that speak English.   But even so, she will still be far less attractive to a potential suitor and his family, even from an area where such a thing isn't unheard of.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 30, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> .
> [link]


About damned time... that ends that argument.

Apparently they aren't all barbaric hedonistic men oppressing women there... 


> But there has been a push by* Saudi human rights groups* to define the age of marriage and put an end to the phenomenon.
> *One Saudi human rights activist *Sohaila Zain al-Abdeen was optimistic that the girl's divorce would help efforts to get a law passed enforcing a minimum marriage age of 18.


----------



## arnisador (May 4, 2009)

This is probably the best outcome that could be hoped for, even if it's imperfect.


----------

