Muslims and Pederasty

I'm sort of confused what the purpose of this thread was supposed to be. The opening statement is... That's a non sequitur. Debate can be made on the validity of a couple of statements within the non argument. But predictably pedophilia got people hopping mad which is I'm sure more or less Pecos' intention. Mad at Islam and Arafat by way of guilt by association.Okay, so was Arafat a pederast? PG can't seem to get his story straight if it is boys or girls that count as traditional pederasty, and neither what Arafat was engaged in, if he did anything at all. The only source for validation that Arafat had sex with kids is a claim by a third party that Mossad has movies of Arafat having sex with children and if you ask any agent (this is something that is easy?) they will laugh (assuming that means yes).Given that Mossad would have incentive to smear Arafat, this does not look like a valid source at all. Indeed if they did have such movies, and they thought this was such a crime, why are they hanging on to this evidence/passing it around for laughs, instead of trying to being charges? If anything, this accusation smears Mossad more than Arafat as its agents appear to get off watching kiddieporn featuring Arafat.Then there is the question of Islam itself. Given that Islam is a religion that crosses many different cultures and consists of many different "denominations", it seems far fetched to claim that Islam and pederasty are linked.The original article discusses male-male pederasty which may very well have existed in tribes which happened to be muslim. Okay, so what? Pedophilia and polygamy was allowed in Xianity and judaism back then as well and has continued in some cultures right up till today. Most do not. The question would be how many arabic tribes back then still practice this today, and are they the entirety of Islam... even if they still existed they are patently not the entirety of Islam.Then he has quotes from Quran. They were misquotes. Nuff said.Then he has quotes from Khomeini. Let's assume they were true. K was not the lead spokesperson for Islam. He was a major leader for many muslims, but then Jerry Fallwell is a leader of many Xians... not all. Interestingly enough K seems to be speaking of a totally different kind of sexual contact allowed with children. It certainly is not what the first article describes. This underscores that different cultures and denominations share the religion of Islam.But let's say PG is right for a second about all of this. So what? How would their having different sexual norms set them up for criticism? Different cultures have different sexual norms, does that make one better than the next? Can they be judged that way? How is that criticism unlike someone coming on and saying Bush eats at Red Lobster? And Xians like a good pig roast?I am not seeing a point to the criticism except to say look at how weird they might be, because they act different than us. Gee go figure.This is just a slam job, and I'm kind of surprised no one has really challenged the idea that even if if he were right it would actually mean something was objectively wrong with Islam or Arafat.I was also taken aback by the Palestinian poster who tried to argue the good name of the Palestinian people by saying if they had found out Arafat was a pederast they would have dragged him into the street and killed him.Excuse me, but that is a more disturbing commentary on the state of a people's culture, than whether a guy has sex with kids. Unless of course you happen to view cold blooded killing as somehow "better" than sex. I hope not all Palestinians or muslims would agree with you. Though I guess you have also said you are Xian and live in the US so the stated mania makes a bit more sense.In the end this all seems like a nonissue. No coherent argument made for discussion. No good facts presented to support statements inside the non sequitur. And in the end, even if the statements were true, there is no real moral implication to be made off of this except of cultural differences.So why am I writing? Oh... uhmmmm. Okay nevermind.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No problem. Just remember that high horses make easy targets. I had a feeling that was the case, but one of my little causes is shaming people back into reality regarding sexual issues. The hyperbolic fear of sex and anything sexual, and that goes double for when it involves kids, has gotten way out of hand in the US... and is now being pushed on the rest of the world by the US.People should relax and ask, does this really matter? Unless it involves real suffering, it is just sex. Pedophilia, or more correctly pedophilic acts, don't inherently involved kidnapping, torture, and/or murder of children. Given that reality I would hope that you find killing much much worse than pedophilia. I mean they aren't even on the same plane, even if you find both acts physically repugnant.For example the Greeks did have pedophilia as part of their culture (especially male-male). Even if you personally don't like it, I would hope you could distinguish that aspect from if they enjoyed killing each other for sport.I realize I'm sitting tall in the saddle on my high horse now, but it just seems to me that ol' PG never would have had an audience if people realized his claims (even if true) didn't amount to a hill of beans. The fact that he was wrong as well just compounded the error. But he was counting on, and received, the knee jerk reaction necessary to give him validation.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

While that is a nice zinger for PG, it actually extends the same problem environment I was criticizing PG for fostering.What I was talking about is actual cultural acceptance of pedophilia and polygamy by Xians, and not hidden acts where the actors themselves knew they were operating outside their culture's expectations.In modern times, though it is slowly diminishing in practice, sex and marriage at very young ages is accepted in some denominations of Xianity. You will certainly not find one age related sexual sanction, nor number of wife sanctions in the Bible. You can find this in some of the very low age of consent and/or marriage laws in the US.The same goes for polygamy. Although almost wiped out, mormons continue to practice their culture, which is based on older church traditions.I am not slamming any of these people or their traditions in order to poke fun of the Xians. I am poking fun at PG, with his assumption that Xianity contains no cultural, indeed sexual cultural, diversity.With the exception of Judaism, the monotheistic religions of Xianity and Islam allowed adherents to enter from many different cultures and cultural practices. They even adapted their own religion where need be. That's why they spread real fast.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-02-2004 04:50 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Perhaps you missed the part of my quote that said "unless it involves real suffering". You did not detail anything regarding Arafat and Islam except that a person may have enjoyed sex with children, and a culture within a religion (though you attempted to tie it to a religion) may allow for sex with children. If children were harmed I am sure you will provide evidence... more laughing Mossad agents I presume? For a guy short on research, it doesn't surprise me you think there is some kind of research which shows that children are objectively unready for sex. What age is the magic number that they suddenly can have sex, what is the physical process which makes them ready, what is the physical process of damage from having pleasurable nerve endings stimulated? I look forward to your well documented research. You realize that just because it might not be harmful, and indeed may even be considered a good in a society, does not make an action mandatory. Especially in sex, just like any other source of pleasure, taste is what sets one's interests.It is perfectly legal and causes no harm for me to eat a giant bean burrito, but I would not... and will not. If you read his full quotes he was not discussing full sex, which he did make punishments for, but external touching. Sexual contact. Whether it is foul or not is your taste, and that is neither right nor wrong. It is in fact "right" for you. However that does not make it "wrong" for them.His statements were setting law within a culture that I can only assume already had some accepting this behavior and some not. He certainly did not encourage it, only saying what was permissable.He even set up rules for if harm was done to a child. Whether you think they were enough, I have no concept or care. The fact is he acknowledged that there could be harm done and there would be an answering for it.But let's play fair now shall we? Show me where in the Bible there is anything against sex with underage girls? Indeed how about taking girls as slaves and having sex with them? How about polygamy too?Be honest now, aren't there passages in the Bible which encourage, or at least make permissable common taboos in US culture today such as incest, polygamy, slavery (including sexual slavery), and even pedophilia?I will admit it would not look kindly on pederasty as male male relationships appear to not be acceptable, though there is debate if this was always the case, and it is clear that pederasty did exist in the church.Maybe people in stained glass churches shouldn't be throwing stones.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-02-2004 08:46 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

And those would be? I'm sorry but the fact of the matter is that throughout history and cultures that has existed with no problems to the people in those cultures.Physiological and psychological harm coming from a sex act, is the result of sociological conditions, not inherent objective ones. It doesn't matter what the majority of modern populations believes now does it? Only facts do. Otherwise homosexuality is harmful and wrong (even in psychological text books 20 years ago), as well as fornication and masturbation (all considered harmful at one time). Heck, if the majority of modern populations believed that Islam was harmful, would that make it so?Children's bodies are not prepared for certain sexual acts, but that is also true for grown adults. It is also absolutely true that not all sex acts can harm, and many would bring pleasure. If it didn't then children would not stimulate themselves for pleasure, nor experiment with others for pleasure. As far as psychological preparation, that is a wholly culturally derived artifact. There is no overt psychological harm from receiving or giving another sexual pleasure.The best you can say is that we have societal expectations regarding sexual behavior and it is that sex below a certain age (though that varies from place to place) is not "good". Because of this, and the laws we put in place around it, such activity will often lead to difficulties for those who engage in them.This is important. because it means we cannot judge actions in ancient Greece, or any Islamic tribal communities that might accept pedophilia as wrong or harmful. They simply did not have the same social environment which would lead to the same outcomes. It is comparing apples and oranges. Really, based on what criteria? What are "plain" right ages? Is a child touching itself or another child wrong no matter which way you cut it?I'm sorry but you are coming off as credible as PG in this matter. A position of absolute moral authority is not clear in this case, and to take on is foolhardy. Look at your post and you will find as many blank assertions and guilt by associations as PG just got done using.Again this all takes me back some. Your defense of Palestinians was a knee jerk we kill pedophiles. Now it is an okay we don't just kill pedophiles, but they are obviously wrong. Indeed equal to killing someone else? It seems there is still some odd sense of reasoning going on here.And what then am I to make of it when I see Palestinians dressing their children up in "martyr" garb and telling them it is good to kill themselves and others? Frankly I find that more of a concern then if they were teaching their children to be open sexually. Don't you?I can guarantee you there is more harm tossing rocks at tanks and strapping explosives to one's body, than touching someone sexually. Don't you agree?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Uhhhh... well not quite right. Indeed utter bullocks is just a nice ad hominem to wash it all down.I said throughout history and cultures. I will totally grant that you can move back into time or places where we cannot say what were the actual effects of any activity within a society.But that does not erase our actual encounters with societies that have not had the same sexual proscriptions regarding age, and their not having had an ill effect on the society, or prevented people from being "normal" or "happy" with their lives. On top of that we have no research to show that there is any inherent negative effects of sexual activity at any age. You seem to be making the assumption that it only occured within Greek society at the edges of time. It didn't and we can make assumptions regarding what it was like back then in Greece, using better documented cultures and cases from more recent times.The assertion that we cannot know it was not bad so then we can assume it was, is in itself a fallacy, and it cuts in many directions. Ancient societies allowed for nudity in front of children, well we can't say it didn't harm them, so it must? They also had homosexuality, well we can't say it didn't harm them, so it must? Indeed as I have stated time and again, homosexuality was a clinical diagnosable problem not more than 20 years ago. They could equally have used the argument you just used. Masturbation was a mental problem before that.On top of all the other problems, relating sexual activity to slavery, wife-beating, and other issues where there is an obvious transgression of one person's will over another person's rights is not only a strawman it is simply a guilt by association argument.This is all very simple. What mechanism turns sensations of physical pleasure from certain parts of one's body, or touching certain parts of another person's body, into physical and psychological damage? At what age does this end, and what process takes place to end this? If you have this then you can make statements regarding objective harm. Otherwise it is the argument from ignorance, strawmen, and guilt by association.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yeah, it seems like we are moving away from the actual message I was intending. I guess no one is picking up on the irony I was trying to get at.PG has mentioned a Arafat and Islam. These are two entities which are current topics because of their volatile nature and connection with overt violence in the world today. Without question they are connected to deaths of many innocent people.The irony in order to get out how really bad these entities are, he does not discuss their connection to violence, which would effect us, but rather possible personal foibles and cultural differences... and everyone seems to be agreeing with that reasoning! People are talking about how faulty his facts are on relating the first two entities to the third, but not about whether there are any facts to believe the third is harmful, or in any case what that would say about those entities.This is why I said let's assume PG was right. So what?For example, let's say Pagan Greek civilization thrived and spread instead of Islam. So what we are seeing today is Israel being stamped on a bunch of Pagan Greeks and much of the MidEastern peoples in other nations are believing in Pagan Greek religion. Thus there is no question that there is pederasty (and perhaps pedophilia) accepted by all these people.That would make PG's claims about Arafat and people who are now under Islam, correct. Is everyone really in agreement that this would mean something about Arafat or Islam (now Pagan-Greek thought)? That this is a sign that they are evil and so should judge the rest of their actions through that lens?Maybe I am off my rocker but that seems to be totally besides the point.That is why I mentioned another example, nonsexual, which is someone saying Bush is evil and Xianity is too, since Bush eats shrimp, and Falwell said Xians ought to have bacon with eggs in the morning.These are moral ascriptions based on cultural beliefs/taboos, and speak more to cultural relativity than what should be concerning us at all.Honestly, if Arafat was traditional Greek and so really accepted pederasty, hands down PG is right, would that change how you view Arafat and the issues he stood for? Or how we should have dealt with him and his people?Really?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That's funny, I could have sworn I said common and not harmful, not common and therefore not harmful.Given that I had just said to jazzns that common is not the sign of right, I certainly did not intend to turn around and say common is the sign of no harm.If that seemed to be the implication of any of my statements, I apologize. Let me make it clear, pedophilia has been practiced commonly without harm to individuals in certain cultures. From this we can extrapolate that pederasty in ancient Greece was not inherently harmful.Additionally, since many of the Greek philosophers shared this upbringing you'd think they'd mention it if they felt bad about it. They certainly punked on any other thing they didn't like about society, even if it meant their lives.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-02-2004 10:56 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I already addressed this in another post in this thread. Let me try and make this clear one more time:The OP makes no argument but just a statement. There are two open and two hidden claim within the statement.:
hidden--
1) There is something objectively wrong with pedophila or pederasty such that anyone or any culture engaged in it is not right.
2) Any actions taken by such persons or cultures can be legitimately called into question based on the other actions which we see are not right.
open--
3) Arafat was a pederast.
4) Islam supports pederasty or pedophilia.The last two have no reason to be discussed, or it is generally pointless to discuss them, unless the first two are felt to be true. Otherwise who cares?I apologize if my addressing hidden premises makes it seem off topic, but from my education in philosophy they are just as important and relevant for discussion. Indeed they are usually critical.Everyone is dealing with the last two alone which appears then to legitimate his first two points. I did deal with the first two (and they are shaky), and then moved on to address the last two.Dealing with the last two alone will logically allow PG to continue creating such nonsense threads again and again. Dealing with the first two will pull the rug put from under PG altogether, because who cares who he wants to point the moral finger at unless it actually has relevance to the subject at hand? Didn't you go to Homa.org to find out where he got the quotes? It seems that Khomeini may have said this. The question remains... how is this relevant to anything?(edited in: I just put the premises in a better order for clarity)
(edited in 2: I think trying to deal with hidden point 1 is what threatens to drag the thread off topic, and I would rather concentrate on point 2 which is why I brought up Bush eating shrimp and Xians eating pork as another moral issue which could be used in insinuation and guilt by association arguments.)This message has been edited by holmes, 12-02-2004 11:19 AMThis message has been edited by holmes, 12-02-2004 01:04 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well I feel off "forgiving" something. I don't hold it against you anymore. I only repeated that you had made the statement because it tied in with another point I was trying to make.If it makes you feel any better I really liked you post in the thread on terrorism, regarding Palestine/Israel. I agreed with it. Let me try and wrap this up as this part of the "pedophilia question" is getting further off topic.You are making assertions. They are your opinion. That is not necessarily a problem, indeed as it forms your own tastes that is okay.However, it does become a problem when it rises to the level of trying to form public opinion by stating them as fact, or feeling so strongly it must be true that you will create a fiction to make your personal taste seem logically justified.That is what PG was doing with this thread, and why then I found it necessary to bring your own comments to ground. Your excitement on two separate issues has left you stating things that are not quite true. You were thus doing what he was doing without knowing it. Think of this as me trying to give you a lesson on sticking to facts, rather than going with just your gut.Indeed question your gut when it is telling you what facts are, rather than simply what your personal taste is... This was not what I meant. I was pointing out that not too long ago, your own level of assertion (used against pedophilia), was used against those others. The very idea that they are "safe" today is because courageous people fought the modern majority, to make them face the facts that there is no inherent harm from them, only what harm society inflicted on those who did them.Many still believe they do harm, just as much, and in some cases more than pedophilia. If you believe the modern majority was wrong in those cases, it is logical to begin questioning the modern majority on other sexual issues as well (or any issue for that matter). Otherwise we all might as well revert to being like PG, what we feel is true must have some basis in fact.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Off-topic, but in reply: You are wrong. There are varying ages of consent, even within the US. I am not sure what the "majority" of AOCs are, but there is a consistent range from 12-18 depending where you are. And even those with laws do not necessarily do so because pedophilia is wrong but to create protections from potential abuse from authority figures. Google age of consent and you will find a site which deals with age of consent laws.You might one day look into histories of age of consent laws and find out why they came about and begin wondering how people began viewing them as meaning kids are actually hurt by sex itself.The nation I am in currently allows sex from 12, with a few complicated bits thrown in for protection from teachers till 16. It is currently reviewing its laws because of pressure from the US so that the US can more easily enforce its national (not state) sex laws. If this country caves to US pressure am I to believe harm suddenly started occuring, or that the US was always right? See how silly this gets.I might add that until recently they all had laws against homosexuality and porn. Does that mean everyone agreed or that such things are objectively wrong? For the entire thread, and that includes PG, we should really define whether pederasty is the same as pedophilia or what. Traditionally it has slightly different meanings. Indeed a person could be fine with having sex with young girls yet be against pederasty because it involves homosexual sex.In any case, I do agree that for the most part throughout the US, perhaps the world, and definitely for those within this thread, most will feel pederasty is wrong. Yes. And I will explain by example. Let's say Arafat was gay and ran off to get married in the Netherlands. Lets say Islam allowed for those kinds of unions.Clearly gay marriage is considered wrong by many people, even today. If the title of this thread was Muslims and Gay Marriage, would everyone get a free ride to just assume gay marriage is wrong because it is so harmful, since most people think that is wrong? Or would that also be something to debunk as an issue to be worried about at all?I think most gays and gay supporters would be like. whoa why do we just assume this is correct to label as objectively wrong... just because the majority happen to feel so and there are laws against it? I have no idea about Palestinians in specific, but there are definitely cultures within the MidEast which allow for fondling and kissing and some oral sex of younger men by older men. And without question sex is allowed to very young ages between sexes as long as it is within a marriage (not sure if we are considering this pederasty?). Palestinians can be married from 12 if I remember right. 13 maybe?I think it is pretty obvious though that what PG was eluding to was not something people in that region would find very cool... sex parties with a dictator? No that wouldn't be cool at all.ON TOPIC: This is what I am getting at. This is hidden premise two, that an entire entity can be judged wrong because of a difference in moral beliefs.I am arguing that even if he showed that all of Islam allowed for pederasty, that might mean that you would not agree to be a follower of Islam, but does that make it "wrong". Does that mean that the things people do under Islam are now under question?A shared taboo for Jews is not eating pork, since Xians do does that make Xianity wrong or immoral? Even if so, then so what? What are we supposed to make out of that point? A group of people that don't like something don't like that another group likes that something? Whoop dee do. You see what I am getting at now?It is irrelevant if we are talking about pederasty or eating a ham sandwich. The point he is trying to make is that another religion is immoral because it doesn't share the same moral beliefs he does... or we do? If we are reduced to this level of introspection on topics then this is going to be a sad new millenia. Actually he has moved somewhat. He has shown that perhaps a segment of the Islamic community, particularly in Iran, does practice pedophilia and bestiality.I can't read farsi or know if this is actually written by Khomeini, but it appears that Khomeini was setting out laws to regulate it. Interestingly enough noting how one should not be harming the children one has sexual contact with.I will state that I have heard experiences of this kind of social customs within Iran, Afghanistan, and I think maybe Syria and Jordan. It is not direct knowledge but it came from people defending their culture so my guess is they wouldn't be admitting such a thing if it didn't hold some truth.The fact that Khomeini does not represent all of Islam or all of the cultures within Islam stands as the only refutation for PGs general claim regarding the religion as a whole. Indeed, his Quran quotes were nothing at all. I hope you can understand why this is not true. It may explain why you don't want to challenge that portion of the claim, or why it gets your hackles up, but it is still relevant to address it as it is part of an objective statement.Of course it is more important to deal with the general issue of if a culture can be stigmatized as immoral by people with a different moral system, and have that stand as something more than making a cultural comparison. And what does that mean about everything else they do or think?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I think we are almost there... Actually this is not true. The argument against porn and homosexuality was that it did harm someone. Only masturbation, or porn made for onesself, was solely a personal issue. Remember these were considered inherently harmful, and as we treat kids today, nothing that any normal person would want.Thus in the production of porn one is hurting someone, through its distribution one is hurting the viewer (though they may have made the choice to view it how are they unlike kids not realizing they shouldn't). Homosexuality was not natural and certainly not genetic and so it was always a homosexual perverting an innocent and dragging them into certain physical and psychological harm.In fact they were both considered to be part of violent crimes, porn especially so. The violence argument is still made against porn even today.Thus they are very accurate, and in any case the overall point I was trying to make is that most people thinking something and even passing laws doesn't mean anything is real or objective. Absolutely correct. It is different in degree but the same issue. That only tells us that sexual issues are considered more serious in these times than culinary ones. Then again, try and feed pork to a child of a Jew or Muslim and you will find almost the same level of anger. I personally witnessed a Muslim try to attack a person for giving him pork in what was supposed to be a helal meal. It was serious.Actually this did make me think of a better analogy still. Lets say we were dealing with some Indians in the Southwest US. A person like PG can talk about a popular political/military figure and point out that he has engaged in drug use, and indeed his tribe not only uses but endorses drug use as part of their religion. Thus they use it and push its use on others. That certainly would make them immoral according to most western minds. Okay, so then what is the point? We are supposed to end dealing with them? Whatever they say is wrong? That is just about dead on. As an addition it will hopefully kill future threads along the exact same line. Well it obviously is error filled and for malignant purpose. The problem is if his topical errors are the only one's addressed, then he will be free to continue shifting his sites to another single target along the same line. Oh that guys a pedo, hey she's a druggie, etc etc immoral issues. I am arguing its better yet to say, or ask, so what? What does that mean to anyone, even if true?Hmmm. Well I guess I should ask... It does appear that many muslims... ones following Khomeini and now the new leader in Iran, do allow for pedophilia and bestiality. What does this mean to you about them (even if not about all of Islam)? That they are immoral, or that they have a different moral system? And even if they are immoral what does that mean regarding how we deal with them? For example, does this mean we have to treat Iran differently regarding their nuclear program, than if their beliefs did not allow this?I see no practical use of PGs claim, even if it was 100% true.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Are you kidding? I can't say anything for numbers of years, tougher sentencing is the norm within the last 20 years, but yes people went to jail for porn and homosexuality. Perhaps you were unaware but it was the goal of the Bush administration to make porn a crime again. Seymour Butts was facing jail time just recently because his videos involved fisting.Larry Flynt is well known for having been arrested on porn charges as well as other people in the early porn industry. Oscar Wilde was also a pretty famous figure for having been imprisoned for homosexual sex... I think his was five years hard labour.You seem to not understand what times were like against other hated groups once "known" by the majority to be wrong and harmful. And you do not seem to know how sex with minors went from a nonissue to the "known" harm it is today. Its just a wheel going round and round having to pick on some group and coming up with rationalizations which sound good and no one bothers to scrutinize.Remember beer was once considered 'known' to be harmful and bad by the majority of this nation... as well as intimately tied to violent crime (which making it illegal helped secure the illusion). By psychologists it was considered mental deviance, with psychological and physical repercussions. These deviants were, like pedophiles, thought to be "predators" on otherwise innocent people. Their deeds were as "violent" as any sex with minors could be. That is it involved coercion and deception at the very least, and actual physical violence at the very worst.Indeed I am hard pressed to believe that you view all cases of sex with minors as "true violent crimes". That seems a little bit out of place, even today. It is known that children can and do engage in sex without violence being involved.Remember this was not that long ago. You can find plenty of popular items from the time which depict gays or pornographers as predators. There are even military training films which show how to avoid problems on shore leave... the leering gay man in the shadows is definitely good for a laugh.Or you can always watch, or better yet read, The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler. It was a popular book and movie early last century. The bad guys are predatory gays and pornographers. Frankly I love Raymond Chandler but in these times much of his attitudes can be pretty offensive. Heheheh... who said it was hypothetical? Well the particular native american leader might be, in order to construct an analogy to Arafat, but the rest was culled from actual US legal issues. You do know that there is at least one tribe that uses peyote and its religious practices made illegal by the government because of their "drug use"? This is true. But if held to actually having to come up with some connection of the claim to a real reason anyone should care, their proclamations would seem pretty hollow. I cannot argue against whether you should feel it is immoral or not, unless you gave your criteria for morality and for some reason it didn't seem to fit. In any case I'm fine with personal judgements. That's what makes the world go 'round. I actually love diversity like that... just not ignorance.But to let you know, from what I have heard of the eastern areas of the MidEast, the subjects mentioned by Khomeini are actually practiced by a multitude of different peoples throughout Iran and Afghanistan (which everyone should keep in mind are not uniform societies like in the US). This does not appear at all to be a leader saying weird things from his personal worldview. It was not like Jim Jones or Koresh creating a new moral reality.It is certainly known that marriage can reach down as low as nine years old, which would certainly involve pedophilic sex.The site Homa.org is where PG pulled his quotes and the site has buttons to go see the farsi writings of Khomeini. If you read farsi maybe you want to go take a look and see if they are real quotes. Absolutely, but again I don't think this is actually the case here. While he obviously does not represent all of Islam, he doesn't even seem to be talking about "here is what the Quran says" to say these acts are what all Islam should practice. It looks more like he was creating law for the people, based on applying Quran principles to the real world. If Quran mentions nothing about age, then he sets down law without age proscriptions and instead mentions its right or wrong based on harm, moral or physical. I saw no endorsement of any actions. Exactly. When oh when is the United Nations going to issue the Prime Directive? Oh hell, that's right... we have to wait for a few more major wars and then the United Federation of Planets issues the directive.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yeah, but in all fairness when the Dalai Lama says something as offensive and immoral as...I am tremendously happy to share the altar of the old metropolitan Cathedral here in downtown Mexico City.....isn't that enough to have you shaking in your boots? I suppose we are soon to hear that he gave some candy to Mexican children, proving that he's a pedophile.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 12-03-2004 01:30 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ned I noticed that my previous post says that you edited it, but for the life of me I can't figure out what you changed. Just interested in what I had wrong.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)