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?
8-year-old girl's marriage ruled legal
- Thread starter Big Don
- Start date
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?
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.
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
Brown Belt
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 421
- Reaction score
- 5
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.
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
Grandmaster
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?
WHY cant you just say 'thats wrong, period" without having to justify, excuse or otherwise trying to explain it away?
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,930
- Reaction score
- 1,452
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
Grandmaster
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hmm, that little flap of skin is not needed in life, cutting pieces off of little girls is more concerning....
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
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.
Orthodoxy - G. K. Chesterton.
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?
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.
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.
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
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
Shouldn't we fix our own issues before we condemn someone else for theirs?
