Does thinking Islam is worse than other religions make me racist? - Page 20 - Religion, God, and Theology

And you are drawing equivalence between acts separated by 1500 years when the age of consent seems to have been lower everywhere. People died a lot younger I'd be surprised if that didn't mean people having kids younger given the need for the parents to raise the child. I don't think that makes 9 okay but then I don't think that makes 12 ok.

The whole idea of religion is moral absolutes that are true for all time. If Mohammed did something, that means it was morally OK, under Islam (or at least that it was not a major sin; read on).

The age of puberty has been trending downwards, at least for the last couple centuries. In the 19th century the average age at which girls began puberty was 15; it is now 11.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fretelöo

(Unless you want to suggest that there's a significant difference between having sex with a 9- and a 12-year old and/or roman society was openly accepting of intramarital rape)

But nobody follows the example of Roman society today, whereas many follow the example of Mohammed.

Quote:

The other issue is contemporary muslims citing customs from 600 AD for their present-day actions. The latter is obv. absurd - unless you assume that Muhammed was infallible or something (which I don't think is a tenet of islam).

The prophets are held to have been incapable of committing "major sin". ****ing children is not a major sin in Islam, or indeed a sin of any kind, as long as you're married.

Quote

09-12-2013 , 10:43 AM

#477

Louis Cyphre

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 11,025

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

I went there because of you saying Islam is worse because there's justifcation of the act and I don't know how that's worse than the catholic church covering up child abuse. Does thinking Islam is worse than other religions make me racist? I think it's relevant.

I don't know why you still struggle to see the difference between condoning a barbaric act and covering up but not condoning it.

Quote

09-12-2013 , 10:50 AM

#478

fretelöo

Mean? Me?

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 10,219

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisV

But nobody follows the example of Roman society today, whereas many follow the example of Mohammed.

Correct. Which makes the PRESENT practice problematic. For all I know (again -- difficult to find sources), Mohammed, in marrying a girl, was acting roughly within the confines of his society.

Quote:

The prophets are held to have been incapable of committing "major sin". ****ing children is not a major sin in Islam, or indeed a sin of any kind, as long as you're married.

infallible != without sin. Infallible ~ inerrant. Mohammed is believed to have committed errors (albeit few). Thus, assuming for the moment that you're right, he may have been sinless yet fallible.

It's really not a discussion that can generally be had in an online forum, but I suggest you buy/lend The Trauma Myth. After reading that, I'd say there's a decent chance you'll have a more nuanced view regarding the relationship of sin and child sex abuse.

Quote

09-12-2013 , 10:59 AM

#479

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mightyboosh

No one seems to want to address the issue that this happened under Sharia law and the majority of modern day Muslims would support living under Sharia law.

Here's some data. I suggest reading the whole thing:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/t...iety-overview/

In particular, note that "Sharia Law" isn't a singularly accepted idea, so that there's wide variation in what it represents and how it should be applied and interpreted.

Quote:

If that happened, presumably the marriage of young girls would become even more common for religious reasons.

That's a pretty stupid presumption to make. There is not a "religious reason" for your girls to marry young. That is, there's not suddenly an impetus to marry younger.

Quote

09-12-2013 , 12:12 PM

#480

Mightyboosh

mmm mmm good

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,560

Actually that's incorrect, our Western Legal system has been influenced by Roman attitudes toward Law, English is mostly based on Latin, there are extant societies that still indulge in legal Homosexuality, orgies, expansion by conquest and other 'Roman' activities.

So there are plenty of examples that we do still follow, including marrying girls off young (the Vatican at 14). In the uk we (the Church of England) only stopped marrying girls off at 12 less than 90 years ago.

Quote

09-12-2013 , 12:57 PM

#481

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mightyboosh

None of this (especially the first paragraph) points to a "religious reason" to get married younger. You're missing the obvious causal factor.

Quote

09-12-2013 , 03:25 PM

#482

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre

I don't know why you still struggle to see the difference between condoning a barbaric act and covering up but not condoning it.

how is enabling an act to continue not condoning it?

Quote

09-12-2013 , 03:29 PM

#483

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisV

So then Christianity still condones slavery? I don't know that this is the case and while I'm not qualified to argue this particularly strongly there were biblical justifications for slavery.

And yet churches change their position on ethical questions sufficiently frequently that this seems an inaccurate portrayal of religions relationship to moral absolutism.

Quote

09-12-2013 , 04:22 PM

#484

networth

veteran

Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 2,208

grunch...I think most atheists are meh about religion. Except when religions provide divine justification for offensive, hateful, unacceptable behaviors. Since 9/11 there has been immense media attention on Islamic dogma that fits one of those categories. So I don't see racism, but be aware of media influence and manipulation.

Quote

09-12-2013 , 05:49 PM

#485

Louis Cyphre

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 11,025

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

how is enabling an act to continue not condoning it?

Do you think the reason for the cover up was
a) to enable more child abuse
b) to protect the reputation of the church ?

Quote

09-13-2013 , 01:18 AM

#486

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre

Do you think the reason for the cover up was
a) to enable more child abuse
b) to protect the reputation of the church ?

I think protecting the reputation of the church was the reason for the cover up in most instances. I believe a consequence of that cover up was enabling it to continue.

Quote

09-13-2013 , 05:02 AM

#487

Louis Cyphre

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 11,025

That's my point. Although both acts are despicable there's a qualitative difference.

Quote

09-13-2013 , 05:13 AM

#488

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

I don't agree, I don't think the actions of the church in protecting abusers and in so enabling the abuse of children to continue has a significant enough difference.

Ministers of the church were moved in the knowledge that they would abuse again, I don't know how that isn't condoning child abuse. If the church has placed the reputation of the church above that of it's congregation it has done so for political reasons in the same way it seems that those Islamic scholars in Yemen have put whatever interests they have ahead of those children the repealed legislation was designed to protect. These don't need to be identical for them to be equally morally abject.

Quote

09-13-2013 , 05:16 AM

#489

Louis Cyphre

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 11,025

In one case the child abuse is the intended consequence, in the other it is unintended. I can not make it any clearer than that. If you want to stick to your view of both being equal I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Quote

09-13-2013 , 05:23 AM

#490

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

I don't think the consequence should be rated by whether it's intended rather whether it can be reasonably inferred. If the intention is to protect the church at the expense of the child then the risk to the child is intentional.

Quote

09-13-2013 , 06:24 AM

#491

Mightyboosh

mmm mmm good

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,560

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

how is enabling an act to continue not condoning it?

The enabling was an unintended side effect of the cover up. I don't think it implies that it was condoned, by action or inaction.

Quote

09-13-2013 , 09:04 AM

#492

Louis Cyphre

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 11,025

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

That is you opinion and I along with all legal systems I am familiar with disagree.

Quote

09-13-2013 , 09:19 AM

#493

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

So death by dangerous driving carries a lesser penalty in most cases than murder as does manslaughter because of the intent. However in English law manslaughter may carry a sentence of life in prison. So it seems that in England at least the consequence of an act may be considered as worthy of a life sentence as the intent.

However while it may not have been the intention to subject children to abuse the fact that offending priests were moved from parish to parish and institution to institution, when they weren't left in the parish or institution where they offended, means that the church failed those kids just as the society failed this girl.

Last edited by dereds; 09-13-2013 at 09:46 AM.

Quote

09-14-2013 , 06:42 AM

#494

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

There are many types of mens rea in England: Direct intend (you intended the action and the consequence), oblique intent (you intended the action and a consequence, but you also knew this consequence), knowingly (you knew or should have known the consequence), recklessness (you knew the action and didn't care about the consequences), negligence (the criminal did not know the consequences, but a normal person would have)

This case seems like a good candidate for oblique intent. While the aimed consequence might not have been to abuse children, it would be a known consequence of concealing the abuse.

Quote

09-14-2013 , 06:52 AM

#495

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Thanks, that gets me to where I was driving at much better than I could have.

Quote

09-14-2013 , 11:10 AM

#496

Louis Cyphre

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 11,025

In German law we also have something called "conscious recklessness" where someone is aware of a possible negative consequence and accepts it as a possible outcome despite preferring it not to happen. The textbook example is overtaking another car when you can't see oncoming traffic (eg. hill,bend). Someone might be aware of maybe hitting someone but performs the maneuver anyway. This is different from plain recklessness where that negative outcome is not even considered.
I think that is very similar to how the catholic church behaved in regards to pedophile priests.

Quote

09-14-2013 , 12:36 PM

#497

Mightyboosh

mmm mmm good

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,560

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

This case seems like a good candidate for oblique intent. While the aimed consequence might not have been to abuse children, it would be a known consequence of concealing the abuse.

Doesn't this assume (unless you have knowledge?) that the abuse was covered up and no attempt was made to stop it happening? How could it be a 'known consequence' anymore than a priest who abuses children now even though the cover up was exposed??

The only way to fully rule out the possibility of abuse would be to prevent priests from ever being in the physical presence of children, something I wouldn't object to