Muslims and Pederasty

Right. For instance, Catholic Churches in the US.

Not called for! The exceptional behaviour of some doesn't apply here either.

My statement was made in earnest. Given the non-discipline of clergy implicated in these abuses, I don't see how anyone could dispute the conclusion that these behaviors aren't frowned upon by the culture of the Church to the same degree that secular society does.But neither here nor there, I suppose.

Not to mention that in many cases Church leaders protect the offending clergy from prosecution, including documented cases of their being sent abroad for missionary work when accusations come to light (not that I have that documentation handy).In any case, recent protection of clergy pedophiles by the Catholic Church has tarnished said Church as an enabler of such activity.

Thanks for bringing me down to earth. I most certainly was exaggerating due to the fact that I was so upset about what I was reading. I don't believe anyone in my family would really drag someone out in the street and shoot them. Really I should have just said more correctly that they would not be happy. Hopefully you could tell that I was just pissed off.ABE:Moreso, I don't really believe that killing is better or worse than pedophilia. I feel bad for misrepresenting myself especially as the one vocal Palestenian about this issue on this board. Hope you understand.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-02-2004 12:07 AM

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)

--------People should relax and ask, does this really matter? Unless it involves real suffering, it is just sex.----------Just sex? You ghastly creature. Clearly, just sex when you were a child has never happened to you. You have not paid attention when now-grown men have told their story of life-long suffering because they were molested by priests as children, or women who were molested by their father or other relatives. Just sex in those circumstances becomes a criminal act and has horrid consequences. You need to take a look at yourself first and then at the research that discloses how completely unready for sex children are. Disgusting. Do you have 'just sex' with children? If it is just sex, why not? Well, why not?
And that animal, Khomeini, even encouraged sex with babies, a devout muslim, the leader of his people, an example. That is foul.This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 12-02-2004 07:44 AMThis message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 12-02-2004 07:46 AM

you seem to be dodging the question - Afrat + evidence?

We could start a new thread on this but I don't know how many people would care. I agree pretty much with your post except for the general sentiment about pedophilia being wrong.Just because pedophilic acts are condoned in some cultures does not make it any more acceptable for a number of physiological and psychological reasons. Some cultures also kill the juvenile girls when their fathers die in battle but that doesn’t mean killing is in any way good. Maybe at one time it was necessary to help the tribe survive but many of those traditions are carried on despite the modern absence of the need.Children’s minds and bodies are not prepared for adult sexual activity until at least puberty. Call this my own personal belief if you want but the majority of modern populations agree. Just because the ancient Greeks did it does not make it right. The ancient Greeks took slaves and we don’t really consider slavery acceptable either.I think the most important thing I would like to get across is that just because one culture has found a way to make something seem more acceptable does not make it right under the light of those cultural values. There are some things that are just plain wrong no matter how you color it and with extremely few exceptions.Having sex with children is wrong no matter how you cut it.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-02-2004 08:22 AM

Stop avoiding people. Retract your rediculous babble and lets get on with some real discussions.

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)

I'm sorry but that's an utter bollocks argument. We have no idea what effect any historical practices had on people, we have no idea whether those involved were permently damaged or not. Just because it is commonplace and happens to a lot of people doesn't mean it's ok (c.f wife-beating, slavery, bullying at school - sure people usually survive these things and get on with their lives but that doesn't mean they aren't harmful).

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)