View Thread

Atheists Today » Religion » Islam
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Koran Backs Sex Before High School
willie
neilmarr wrote:
By the way, Willie, 'secular law' is clearly defined by many authories. A simple Google will do it for you or anyone else who may be confused as to the meaning of the term.
Actually Neil, it's nothing like that simple. I can't find a single dictionary that defines the term. I contend it's a misnomer. Probably worth it's own thread. I'm away until Monday, I'll start one when I get back. That should give you time to sort some facts out.

neilmarr wrote:
I will not argue fact (what's the point when another simple Google will back up all material I've presented as such in this thread and anywhere else).
Creationist could (and do) use exactly the same argument.

neilmarr wrote:
Opinion in my posts is always clearly defined as my own. I am scrupulous about that. I respect anyone's right to disagree with that opinion and voice alternative views. But there comes a point when folks must agree to differ on matters of opinion or risk a fruitless squabble (hence what you call my 'platitudes' to defuse a potential pointless tiff in another thread).
Too late to start whining again, Neil. I agreed to let the Sharia thread drop. You, not me, brought it up again in this completely unconnected thread, making the same discredited statement.

neilmarr wrote:
The tone of your last post but one, Willie -- calling into question my mental health, accusation of deliberate inaccuracy, lies and stupidity, and its heavy hint of undue prejudice -- is uncalled for to say the least. And I will not pretend (as Rathpig might) that it is not deeply hurtful.
Sincerely sorry to upset you. Don't take it personally, my bark is worse than my bite. Although, If you are going to ignore shot's across the bough then you are going to have to get a thicker skin. All you need do is defend your comments.

neilmarr wrote:
And no, Willie, I did not make this up.
How about addressing the things I have accused you of making up, before misrepresenting me again.
 
JohnH
Willie I do not want to get your dander up because I frankly could be made to look stupid. You argue hard and well and I do not think at a distance I could compete. I often when pushed resort to yelling because I am good at that but it really is ineffective in making a point.

But I do not understand why this particular subject has caused you so much anger.

I will agree that the amen chorus jumping on islam is a little bit off putting. I think it has to do with the probable fact that many of us grew up in christian households and it is in fact easier to bash the other then our former selves. It is also in line with a lot of current social pressures in the us and in europe.

But the basic facts seem reasonably irrefutable. A man is wed to a far too young woman and that probably illegal and certainly immoral act is defended as acceptable to islam. Given that why don't you discuss the social and economic issues that might lead to this thing. Why don't you point out that the family of the child may have in fact thought of this as a way of helping their daughter. Why not point out to the people on this board that it is disingenuous to have the same hatred of islam that the christians do.

There are a lot of points that you can make that might help all of us understand the prejudices that we come form. But, the angry rebuttal of what are mostly accurate comments is to my mind unwarranted
 
General-Pryce
willie wrote:

General-Pryce wrote:Actually it's not lies, it's just not 100% accurate.

The judge did not refuse a divorce, but refused a quick divorce, and included religious views in the decision.
I'm well aware of the facts of the story, that's the point, I took the time to check them. Neil didn't, he just presenting an interpretation that fit his agenda, as you say, not 100% accurate --barely 10% accurate in fact-- this interpretation helps propagate lies. In that case, the misguided views of one judge were presented as representative of a whole legal system and a whole religious outlook. The redress from the legal system and muslim scholars that roundly rejected her view was all but ignored. I pointed that out and Neil refused to retract it. 'German court upholds sharia law' is a lie.


In the original hearing the judge did uphold a law based on Islamic teachings, so the statement is accurate to a certain extent, it just then threw it out afterwards when more sane persons became involved. I wouldn't agree that it's helping to propagate lies. A lie is an intentional manipulation of the truth. You can be mistaken by accident, but you can't lie accidently. I don't think (though I'll have to re-check) that Neil ever said the whole of Germany was represented by this court action, he is fully aware it was one incident.

You seem to be missing the point, maybe there is a use of hyperbole on both sides of the argument here, but the simplest problem anyone has is the fact that a religious book was used as part of judgement in a legal matter.

You may see from previous posts that I very rarely become involved in major debates here, mainly because I learn a lot more from watching the heavy weights duke it out, but on this occassion I have to say you are taking the issue very personally, almost as if picking out Islam as a major concern is bigoted, whereas we can rip the shit out of Christianity whenever we want, and some of your comments addressed towards Neil where unneseccary.
 
catman
willie: I don't pick out Islam as being worse than Christianity; they are both cut from the same cloth. You say that only 7% of the Muslim population of Indonesia supported the PKS, and that may be. But moderate Muslims have a very poor track record of publicly opposing the views of their radical brethren, just as it is with Christians. To say nothing is to tacitly support them. I do not know whether they have made any protest in this particular instance; the media might not consider it newsworthy and not in keeping with their own biases.

As for the news story, it is a complete story IMO. All that you have done is chop it up into snippets by quoting isolated lines. Certainly, all the investigating isn't over, and it may well never be for one reason or another. But everything is a work in progress.

I am still wondering why you have chosen to defend Muslims in particular. They aren't all terrorists or subhumans or any such thing, but surely they are deserving of at least as much opprobrium as we have customarily cast upon Christians, just for holding to an antiquated and irrational set of beliefs which at present are the driving force behing much violence and injustice in the world. Religions in general have an 'us-vs-them' mentality by design. I think Islam is presently a big spanner in the works for everyone else becayse the parts of the world where it is most prevalent haven't been out from under colonialism for very long, and they are still very pissed off about it, for which I can't blame them. But Islam gives religious sanction for all sorts of barbarity, just as Christianity did in an earlier age. I have absolutely no use for any of it.


"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
neilmarr
I'm not going to pick your points apart bit by bit, Willie, because it would take too much space and bore the pants off folks.

You're making much of my mention of the German ruling. I can't remember whether it was here or on Atheists.com (someone with the interest and know-how could find that original post), but I did emphasise that the original judge's decision had been overruled. And that's what the post was all about. My point was that no decision should have been based on religious tradition in the first place and that even legal colleagues in one particular Western country broke ranks for once to make that clear.

That brings us to this latest case in Indonesia where religious law and secular law are in conflict yet again. No police charges have yet been made against the man in question. If they ever are, the major part of his defence will undoubtedly be his compliance with Islamic tradition and law (one in the same thing, of course).

The whole point of my argument is simply that ancient scriptural code -- of any religious hue -- is beneath consideration in modern society, and especially in legal matters. We've painfully grown out of it and it's no longer relevant ... in fact, it is often repugnant (as in religiously sanctioned pedophilia in some cults).

There is no room in a secular society for recognition of scriptural code, ancient or (in the case of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints) modern.

You disagree with this opnion? Do you really believe that scriptural law of any stripe should be afforded recognition and respectability?

Best. Neil
 
watercat
The koran does sanction sex before high school. It's in 65:4.
 
catman
watercat: Welcome to the site, I guess. I don't know what to make of your post...why not go to the 'Pleased To Meet You' thread and introduce yourself?
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
neilmarr
Good to have your company, Watercat. As the other Cat (this one a land animal) suggests, why not introduce yourself in the 'Pleased to Meet You' thread so that we can all say hello? Seems from your Koran reference that you know your stuff and would be more than welcome here.

By the way, I used the term 'before high school' simply because other ways of properly describing the ages and immaturity of the children involved wouldn't have fit in the short space we have for topic headlines.

Best wishes. Neil
 
willie
JohnH wrote:
But I do not understand why this particular subject has caused you so much anger.
Irrational argument makes me cross... and also people who bring up discredited arguments, in unconnected threads, after having pleaded for an undeserved truce.

JohnH wrote:
I will agree that the amen chorus jumping on islam is a little bit off putting.
It's worse than off putting when it's irrational,John. It's dangerous. Here is the same presentation of the story that Neil can't decide whether he wants to debate or run from. I've spent more years than I care to remember fighting the BNP and the like. These stories are putting them in power again. These stories are twisted interpretations of the truth. I can go over the 'sharia' debate again, indeed I would welcome the opportunity, but the point is Neil has parroted the BNP version of the truth rather than find out for him self, in this case, exactly what the Archbishop or the Lord Chief Justice did say, or what the Muslim Arbitration Tribunals actual aims are, or how the UK legal system works. This irrational fear mongering --on all sides-- is a global problem.

JohnH wrote:
But the basic facts seem reasonably irrefutable...
I've not refuted them.

JohnH wrote:
Given that why don't you discuss the social and economic issues that might lead to this thing. Why don't you point out that the family of the child may have in fact thought of this as a way of helping their daughter. Why not point out to the people on this board that it is disingenuous to have the same hatred of islam that the christians do.
I would welcome such an intelligent discussion, and I thank you for bringing those issues up. However, my attempts to look at the bigger picture in the 'Sharia' thread resulted, in the end, in the stupid straw man of me being accused of supporting islam. While the facts went ignored. Same as this thread, so same bullshit, without me having to do all the hard work of research and presenting facts. As soon as anyone climbs above the diatribe, I will.
Edited by willie on 11/03/2008 06:51
 
willie
General-Pryce wrote:
In the original hearing the judge did uphold a law based on Islamic teachings, so the statement is accurate to a certain extent, it just then threw it out afterwards when more sane persons became involved. I wouldn't agree that it's helping to propagate lies. A lie is an intentional manipulation of the truth. You can be mistaken by accident, but you can't lie accidently. I don't think (though I'll have to re-check) that Neil ever said the whole of Germany was represented by this court action, he is fully aware it was one incident.

neilmarr wrote:
But, already, we see in Europe secular courts excusing terrible crimes on the grounds of religion ... a judge in Germany recently ruled against a woman's divorce action against an abusive husband, for instance, on the grounds that his brutal daily beatings were sanctioned by the Koran.
And nothing else, even when I checked him on his facts. German Court upholds Sharia Law --The impression is clear. To paraphrase 'All that is needed for a lie to prevail, is for the honest to say nothing'
 
willie
Catman wrote:
willie: I don't pick out Islam as being worse than Christianity; they are both cut from the same cloth. You say that only 7% of the Muslim population of Indonesia supported the PKS, and that may be. But moderate Muslims have a very poor track record of publicly opposing the views of their radical brethren, just as it is with Christians. To say nothing is to tacitly support them. I do not know whether they have made any protest in this particular instance; the media might not consider it newsworthy and not in keeping with their own biases.
You don't know? What does 'national controversy' and a police and child protection agency investigation suggest?

Yet you still defend Neil's interpretation that Indonesians are 'bending over backwards' to accommodate pedophiles rather than question religion.

Catman wrote:
I am still wondering why you have chosen to defend Muslims in particular.
Same silly straw man. Give it a rest.

Catman wrote:
Religions in general have an 'us-vs-them' mentality by design.
Where does that leave me as an 'alleged non-believer'? Pfft This is not a theological argument, at least from where I'm standing. It's a question being rational.
 
willie
neilmarr wrote:
I'm not going to pick your points apart bit by bit, Willie, because it would take too much space and bore the pants off folks.
You don't need to pick anything apart, nor did I expect you to. All you need to do, now you've been challenged, is explain your opinion --that this story shows a society bending over backwards to accommodate this cleric. As simple as that.
 
willie
neilmarr wrote:
You're making much of my mention of the German ruling.

I could just as easy 'made much' of your assertion that women cannot sit on sharia panels, which was also wrong, and which you ignored when corrected. Or I could have made much of you misrepresenting the Archbishop of Canterbury, which you also ignored when corrected. Likewise the Lord Chief Justice. Etc. Etc. but I didn't. I let it go because your defence had collapsed. You bought it up again. Do you want to defend it or whine about me being a meanie?

neilmarr wrote:
I can't remember whether it was here or on Atheists.com (someone with the interest and know-how could find that original post), but I did emphasise that the original judge's decision had been overruled. And that's what the post was all about. My point was that no decision should have been based on religious tradition in the first place and that even legal colleagues in one particular Western country broke ranks for once to make that clear.
Flat wrong again. And you know it. The link you're looking for.

neilmarr wrote:
You disagree with this opnion? Do you really believe that scriptural law of any stripe should be afforded recognition and respectability?
Thou shall not kill?

watercat wrote:
The koran does sanction sex before high school. It's in 65:4.
Having no knowledge of the koran myself, I'll take your word. However that raises an important point. My argument here is partly with the hypocrisy of (rightly) rejecting religious texts as necessary for moral guidance, while at the same time using religious texts against theists when it suits. This man's crime is a morale one, his religion is no more valid as a defense than it is to use it against him. It is certainly not valid to use his religious defense against people who likely find his crimes as aberrant but share the same religion, with an altogether different interpretation.

Welcome to the site.

neilmarr wrote:
By the way, I used the term 'before high school' simply because other ways of properly describing the ages and immaturity of the children involved wouldn't have fit in the short space we have for topic headlines.
Koran Backs Sex Before High School has 29 letters. Pedophile cleric has just 15...but let's be honest it doesn't have the same effect does it.
Edited by willie on 11/03/2008 07:02
 
neilmarr
The German story reference you cite here, Willie, wasn't my first comment on the tale (and I don't even think I was the member who brought up the case -- dunno -- it was certainly long before the thread on sharia law in the UK). Not that it matters in the slightest.

And I'm not the only one who'd strongly dispute with you a religious basis for modern law and morality. We've all talked over 'the golden rule' and 'though shalt not kill' before. We've been through evolutionary motivation and early secular philosophy on this point.

I take no issue at all with the definition of 'secular law' you posted in another thread (Secular Activism) just now: As I suspected most search results come from theistic standpoints, where 'secular law' is used to distinguish laws not laid out in religious doctrine.

I really don't see what you're kicking up about here. I have reported facts and I and others have commented upon them. Simple as that. I and others have reported perceived misdeeds of other religions and commented on those without this flak.

Your responses really have become predictable and tedious. No offence, Willie, but I think you are in the wrong site to defend religion and its excesses.

And to mention me in the same post as the British National Party (read British neo-Nazis for those of you outside the UK) is really going too far. I said in an earlier post that I was 'deeply hurt' by some of your below-the-belt remarks. This time I cannot express my anger. You are very, very much out of line, young man.

Neil
 
willie
neilmarr wrote:
The German story reference you cite here, Willie, wasn't my first comment on the tale (and I don't even think I was the member who brought up the case -- dunno -- it was certainly long before the thread on sharia law in the UK). Not that it matters in the slightest.
All I have to go on is the reference on this site. Do you believe that case shows that German Courts uphold Sharia Law?

neilmarr wrote:
And I'm not the only one who'd strongly dispute with you a religious basis for modern law and morality. We've all talked over 'the golden rule' and 'though shalt not kill' before. We've been through evolutionary motivation and early secular philosophy on this point.

I take no issue at all with the definition of 'secular law' you posted in another thread (Secular Activism) just now: As I suspected most search results come from theistic standpoints, where 'secular law' is used to distinguish laws not laid out in religious doctrine.
OK. We'll leave that for that thread.

neilmarr wrote:
I really don't see what you're kicking up about here. I have reported facts and I and others have commented upon them. Simple as that. I and others have reported perceived misdeeds of other religions and commented on those without this flak.
I've nowhere disputed the facts. I have asked you to explain how this story shows a society bending over backwards to accommodate this cleric. Why do you refuse to do that?

I also asked how this story was relevant to the the sharia thread. I can see that comment stemmed from your damaged pride, and as such I'll ease off on that.

neilmarr wrote:
Your responses really have become predictable and tedious. No offence, Willie, but I think you are in the wrong site to defend religion and its excesses.
Same silly straw man.

neilmarr wrote:
And to mention me in the same post as the British National Party (read British neo-Nazis for those of you outside the UK) is really going too far. I said in an earlier post that I was 'deeply hurt' by some of your below-the-belt remarks. This time I cannot express my anger. You are very, very much out of line, young man.

Neil
Despite your fragile ego, the fact is the BNP story is identical to your original post in the Sharia thread, from the Archbishop and Lord Chief justice quote mining to the 6 battered wives. Do you dispute their story?
 
seeker
I don't think Willie is defending religion per se Neil. That seems to be an unfair characterization. Neither would I characterize Willie as defending Islam.

As to tedium there is plenty to go round I think. Does it really make sense to keep bashing Muslims, making fun of them and wondering why they won't just drop their silly beliefs when we still treat the Pope with such respect? Is it reasonable to keep going on about the excesses of Sharia law and ignore the excesses of the Catholic Church? Both are indefensible and both are accommodated by our so called secular law.

Why is it that one group gets singled out regularly for the same excesses that their religious nut cousins have been doing all along? More than singled out though, it seems that Catholic priests having sex with underage boys can become a joke and references in the bible to women being on marriage age as soon as they begin puberty but the mention of it in the Koran suddenly stirs us to heights of outrage.

When I was a kid I remember reading very scholarly articles about 'the black crime rate'. 'Experts' were all too happy to point out that black neighborhoods experienced higher crime rates and draw conclusions that ignored any other factors. Try and find statistics on crime in poor white neighborhoods during the 60's, there aren't nearly as many sources.

Its all too easy to get wrapped up in, there are genuinly distressing issues but when one group is singled out just because of who they are then we start committing a much greater crime.

 
willie
Ha! I'm not being contrary for the sake of it here... but Neil does try to paint all religion with an equally broad brush, it's just in our current climate muslim bashing stories are easier to come by. To an extent that evil primitive muslims is the default position to take. Any questioning of facts, as has been displayed on this site, is greeted with the charge of political correctness, running scared, or supporting islam and all it's horrors.

Too use any religious text to show immoral practise defeats the argument.

And seeker reminds me of another point I wanted to make. It may strike as odd that while picking up most people I left Nail's comment alone.
Islam has no problem justifying murder, misogyny, etc. Pedifilic rapists in their clergy would only seem fitting.
There is a subtle difference in making the point that islam has been used to justify aberrant acts and using aberrant acts to justify a point on islam. Nail's comment I found wickedly amusing attack on extremism. Neil's I found to be an insult to the people of Indonesia and moderate muslims.
Edited by willie on 11/03/2008 11:07
 
neilmarr
Just for sheer interest and out of devilment on October 30th -- yep, folks, I've given you five full days -- I placed two other true stories highlighting religion-sanctioned child sex in this very section of the forums.

One involved Christians (Christ's Cult), the other Hindus (other cults). Look, why doncha!

I would have placed others slamming other religions for this outrage, but I could find none.

Now ask me why it is that I'm not surprised neither Willie nor anyone else here has seen fit to leave a single comment on those.

Neil
 
JohnH
neilmar, OK I will bite. Why haven't people commented on those posts. I ask because I think that fact makes willie's point. Many people commented on this thread before willie jumped in. Most of those comments were quite negative.

From what I can tell, at an obvious distance, of the demographics on this site it is much easier to bash islam then it is other religions. I think that has to do with the current demonization of islam.

I will say that the reference to the BNP was at best harsh. I will also say that willie's style can be a bit difficult. The fact is that sometimes people can be in agreement with those we abhor. I have caught as much shit for arguing for tort reform in the US as I have caught for my voting.
 
neilmarr
***it is much easier to bash Islam than it is other religions***

I disagree, John. It is quite easy to bash any religion, either because it is a religion or because it is religion behaving badly. I do agree that Islam's errors are more visible and dramatic in the current climate: that does not mean that rerporting on them or comment upon them is any less valid.

Time and again on these and other boards I have taken a poke at religion. That's why the boards are here and that's why I'm here. That's why this site is called Atheists TODAY.

I strongly object to barbed responses to my messages and posts that call into question my integrity, sanity and even common humanity and that suggest ulterior motive over and above a generally anti-religous agenda.

It reminds me strongly of exactly how and why this whole row started ... it was when I'd posted a Pat Condell YouTube video, some other members applauded it and Willie took offence. Pretty well every insult he threw at Condell then has since been re-directed at me. Maybe I'm just handy.

I detest Islam. I detest Christianity. I detest Judaism and Hindu. I detest Mormons, Scientologists, psychics, astrologers and folks who claim to tell the future by inspecting toad turds. I detest all this nonsense.

That's my job as a strong atheist and anti-religionist.

Now let's go back to why Willie and others didn't comment on two near-identical posts I deliberately made at the height of this controversy a few days ago to test the supposed impartiality of some members.

Complete lack of response to those shows that interest is purely and simply a matter of the Islamic slant being easier to support or decry. In each case, I have simply reported the facts and exercised my right to free comment. Only in the Islamic case has my stance been questioned ... not the facts -- just my position.

Neil
Edited by neilmarr on 11/03/2008 14:37
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Boston and Free School Meals The Lounge 3 09/06/2013 12:00
Color photos from Mars (High Res) Science articles, papers and posts 8 08/31/2012 10:56
School-Homing Funny Zone 5 09/28/2010 20:16
Texas Seeks to Limit Portrayal of Islam in School Texts Christianity 2 09/17/2010 02:02
School Rubber Fetus Ban Being Fought in NM Christianity 2 08/05/2010 03:56