Here's the story of a young Yemeni lady filing for divorce from her abusive husband.
"My father beat me and told me that I must marry this man, and if I did not, I would be raped and no law and no sheikh in this country would help me. I refused but I couldn't stop the marriage," Nojoud Nasser told the Yemen Times. "I asked and begged my mother, father, and aunt to help me to get divorced. They answered, 'We can do nothing. If you want you can go to court by yourself.' So this is what I have done," she said.
- Log in to post comments
This is so rediculous & disgusting. I abhore religion. All of it-
Here we go again. The freaking male again!
If you'd take the time to read the whole article, you'd notice that this behavior is illegal in Yemen. If you read the Yemeni constitution, you'd notice that Yemeni law is founded on Islamic law. In other words, the behavior you're blaming on religion is actually illegal within the religion.
I'm not sure if it's right to blame 'religion' here. To the extent it's possible to separate culture from religion, I'd rather blame culture. It is arabic culture to have arranged marriages, and it is arabic culture to have age gaps between male and female. This seems to be a really mature 8 year old. Good luck to her!
Also, with the Mormons, please separate the FLDS church from LDS. They are very different denominations and have no connections whatsoever.
I encourage all to follow the link, and see her picture. This is not a case of "she's eight, but she looks older". This is deplorable.
While I'm no fan of Islamic culture, or any culture rooted in mythology, I don't know what more you could ask of the authorities. They removed her from the home, arrested the rapist, essentially annulled the marriage, and plan on placing her somewhere safe to grow up.
Curious irony that the eight year-old can't actually bring charges because she is underage.
"She is my wife and no one can stop me".
What a tool.
Wow. Fuck humanity.
What does this have to do with religion? The article makes it perfectly clear that this is illegal in Yemen, and Yemeni law is based on Islamic law.
Her husband is in jail, her father appears to have mental problems, and she's currently in the custody of social services.
Irrespective of what you'd rather blame, holy books claim to be a source of morality. The Muslim holy books clearly tell us of Aisha bint Abu Bakr who was betrothed to Muhammad at the age of 6 and the marriage was consummated at the age of 9. So while you might want desperately to blame the culture, you can't.
The Bible isn't much help either, you can read it through and through and nowhere find an age of consent or a prohibition against sex with children.
The Yemen government is to be commended for bringing its laws in line with civilized thought and for supporting this child, against the teachings of its endemic religion.
A lot of terrible things are done and even sanctioned by governments in the name of Islam, but they got it right this time. Before I read the article I was expecting one of those stories where the judge cites Islamic law and says basically that the girl is SOL and should get busy in the sack. Perhaps you should not have construed it as such...
#10 - This case sounds like a second-order effect. It may not due to religion directly, but to a cultural climate in which women are generally disrespected. Both Islam and Christianity have a great deal to answer for in that respect.
Keep apologizing for them guys.
If they are following islamic law she will be eligible to get married before this goes to trial.
Does such a case of "she's eight, but she looks older" even exist? All 8-year-olds I've seen don't look older. You can look older after puberty I guess, but at 8 everybody looks 8.
Wow, this is unbelievable. What an incredibly mature child - although I guess you'd grow up fast in that environment.
Fuck humanity, indeed.
My favorite part is the way they show her face but put a black bar over the eyes of her "husband."
"Not just the Mormons, of course".
It would be a strange world if it was! When will you get it? It doesn't matter what religion is involved, if any. It's about power. It always has been.
Whether you wrap that up in your local belief system and justify it as a religious right is completely irrelevant to the argument.
Well done to law enforcement in Yemen and Texas for recognising this. From the outside both appear to be scary, fundamentalist societies but this can give us hope.
I can't believe how brave this little girl is. At an age where she should be playing with dolls and clutching a My Little Pony this girl has endured abuse, rape and abandonment/enslavery by her parents. To then decide it wasn't right and be brave enough to travel by herself to an adult court and ask to be heard is so incredible.
I hope the agency they're placing her in has funding to give her an education and a chance at a decent life. Stories like this make me feel so angry and helpless but the glimmer of hope that this child may have a better life is encouraging.
There are not words to express this. At the same time I am outraged, heart-broken and numb...
God damn it, those are the kinds of cases that make my normally non-violent self wish drawing and quartering were still available as punishment.
Common error to blame a religion for the sins of the culture in which it is found. Like blaming atheism for the soviet purges. To evaluate a religion, you have to compare it not to some ideal, but to its cultural context. And as bad as Islam is in some ways, it's much better than the native Arab pagan culture.
Does anyone know anything about this agency she's being placed with, Dar Al-Rahama? I can't find any information about them and I would be interested to know more.
This isn't just happening in the Middle East. Child marriages are common across Africa and Asia as well. It has more to do with culture than religion but the old ways are starting to change.
Those of you who do not blame this on religion, notice that, according to the law and the religion, it is legal for a girl to be married at that age. The man is just supposed to wait until she matures. How likely do you think this is? And is this not the responsibility of the laws of Yemen and Islam? Don't forget that Mohammed was married to Aisha when she was 9 years old (I believe). They say he did not consummate the marraige, but they would say that, wouldn't they? Let's not give religion a free ride! Yes this kind of thing happens throughout Asia and Africa as well. Yes, it's a cultural thing. Isn't religion? It's all tied up in a nice big bundle, and it stinks!
Obsessively linking every bad thing that happens to religion is rather like what Victorian doctors used to do when they blamed every human ill on self abuse. Since almost all human beings have some sort of religion, virtually everything people do can be associated with religion. At the very least, one should acknowledge that the vast majority of Muslims wouldn't approve of what happened to this eight-year old, anymore than the vast majority of American Christians or even American Mormons approve of polygamy in Texas.
Wow, good on that girl! If she's able to take charge of her life like this at 8, she could have a bright future ahead of her.
I agree with the many above who point out that this is (like the FLDS) not a failing of the religion, or the surrounding culture, so much as the perversion of both.
I can't hang these abuses on a belief system or a culture, but on dangerously sick people - or are they ALWAYS men? - who have only an interest in justifying their crimes with whatever is at hand.
That said, I can blame religions for their sanctioning, often consciously, far more numerous and destructive crimes. The believers who express horror at these sorts of stories (the FLDS story is hugely under-reported in the mass media, since it reflects badly on mormons and white males, while an accusation of satanism would be granted blanket coverage, regardless of the actual evidence) have no difficulty excusing, or ignoring, murders, discrimination, exploitation, child-abuse, embezzlement, etc., etc., etc. when it's one of their own.
OMFFSM...
I'm with the other people who don't see this necessarily as an indictment against Islam itself. It has plenty I don't agree with, but this isn't one of those times. A great deal of Muslims seem to find this horrific. The Yemeni government is helping her, and a prominent lawyer clearly sees the problem with the current law making it possible for this situation to happen. That doesn't sound like a problem with the religion; every place has sick fucks who would try to get away with this, if they could.
But never mind that. Words fail to express my admiration of this brave little girl. Against incredible odds, she is so sure of herself and how she doesn't have to take crap off anybody, no matter how powerful they may be in comparison to her. Good for her! I don't usually get the urge to adopt, but this little girl is the exception. I doubt they'd permit an infidel like me to do that, though, so I'm with bride of Shrek in wanting information about the placement agency. The least I could do is send a few bucks to make her life better.
In related news, Stalin was an atheist.
(I'm an atheist myself; I just think this is a fun game).
What a courageous little girl. I can imagine big things in store for her if she's this brave at 8 (if only she is allowed to live to her potential). How many other children are in the same situation I wonder.
I would castrate both her husband AND her father for free....without anesthesia.... disgusting perverts!
@ #17...
Actually, showing her face and blacking out the face of her attacker is kinda poetic justice, if you ask me. You're displaying the face of the heroine in this story and not giving the scum any more attention than he deserves. I kinda think that's appropriate.
Where is Lorena Bobbitt? We need her now more than ever.
This makes me so angry, In just can't even see straight.
God, I'm sick and tired of the mindless and hatefully intolerant Arab bashing by some of you. Look in the mirror and consider all the damn Europeans and Americans who go to Thailand, Costa Rica, Haiti and other places to have sex with 8-year olds in the Sex Tourism industry.
A little less myopia and bigotry might get you to what's going on and why. Like it or not, there is a huge poverty issue that caused the selling of the daughter to the paedophile. Further, religion gets no pass as it frequently props-up societal dysfunction and helps further distort the social issues surrounding poverty, sexual deviance and a whole host of ills.
And, by fucking God, this shit has gone on since time immemorial in many places on this planet, including, in times and places, effing Europe, India, China, Africa, etc. Blaming the "arabs" and acting like there aren't thousands upon thousands of Americans and Europeans as every bit as repugnant as this bastard is about as asinine as you can get.
So get off the race bashing, the region bashing and the fucking faux superiority. This story is about the intersection of poverty, religion and pedophilia. Just like the FLDS story, though the poverty angle is a little more difficult to suss out.
As for giving a pass to the Mormons and the FLDS, dude, there are polygamists within the mainstream Mormon church and it's just a nod and wink. So don't pretend there's no link or relation or that many in the main church wouldn't go back to full polygamy if they could.
Ah, yes...the wonderful, serene, peace-loving religion of Islam. And to think there are those in America (executive members of CAIR, for instance), who would like to see the country under Islamic law. Not that you'll ever see or hear this in the lame scream media, of course.
Huh. It's interesting that all of the hits for that phrase appear to be copies of the story itself.
It may be a variant transliteration or typo of "Dar Al-Rahman", which brings up this (Egypt, rather than Yemen, but it's the closest I found).
http://www.egypt-uncovered.com/responsible_tourism/cairo_orphanage.php
To all of the religious apologists: you don't get it. Yeah, an overwhelming number of Muslims might deplore such behaviour and action, but they have to be doing it from a secular sense of right and wrong, because their religion condones such behavior. Mohammed can do no wrong, and Mohammed had a child bride, ergo having a child bride is not wrong. This is how the religion can be interpreted, period. How does the old saying go, "Without religion, you will have evil men doing evil deeds and good men doing good deeds, but for a good man to do evil deeds it takes religion." That's because religions do not move with the times, and will continue to sanction immoral and deplorable acts long after a culture has embraced a more civilized nature.
Thought experiment time:
Imagine that you flew to Yemen (or most any other Islamic-governed country) and pressed to have the laws changed such that ALL minors under 16 and ALL women of any age had FULL equal rights under the law. I don't think there is a rational person anywhere in 'western civilization' that can find an argument against such a motion. So you write up the text of the proposed law and present it to their government officials, with a local citizen sponsor.
Do you think such a law could get passed unanimously? If not, what would be number one on any list as the reason for opposition?
Now explain how religion has nothing to do with this...
Absolutely disgusting. She's just eight for crying out loud. Eight!! This is not about religion, this is about a sick father who sold his baby daughter and a man who as sure as hell deserves death saying thats his wife. I swear if I se such a person (or this person hopefully) I will make him squeal for death. Yemen is a sick country if they allow this crime to go unanswered.. Sick sick country. and even more sick people. The father needs to go to prison and be violated 24/7..even that will not compare to the hurt he has done his daughter. I am disgusted!!
Duncan: uh huh. Try the same thought experiment in the USA. Think it would pass? Remember the ERA?
Uh.
Another search finds that there are many hits on an "Al-Rahama Relief Foundation". Guess what most of those hits are for?
Oy.
But that was/is not in Yemen either
One thing about Americans, as this comment thread bears out, we sure love prison rape.
I bet the last line torqued a few jaws. One likes to think these are extreme cases, but they probably aren't that extreme. Paradoxically, women are undoubtedly the most oppressed "minority"; and yet, they're 50% of the human race. UN reports always tell us of the bulk of women, esp. in the 3rd world, enduring "traditional" misery because of their sex. Forced marriages, forced prostitution, buying and selling, protecting and bartering, are almost always of daughters, never sons. Although the father here was mentally ill, and almost as much in need of help as his daughter...
What major issue tripped up the ERA? Abortion. And what significant group in the US persistently uses abortion as a political tool?
My assertion stands. Islamic-ruled countries are the example front-and-center here. Substituting any monotheism is simply changing the 'sacred' text used to justify the discriminatory or oppressive actions.
Well, the "Al-Rahma'a Orphanage" is in Yemen, and the name appears to be close to Al-Rahama. But this is not an encouraging report of the place...
http://www.yobserver.com/sports-health-and-lifestyle/10011925.html
Unlike the Mormon sect in Texas, the 8 year old girl in Yemen was actually able to petition the law. The Mormon girls were prisoners.
I think this is probably the place:
This literally made me sick to my stomach.
It's not pretty, but things like this need to be brought to light. Despite my reaction, thank you for the link.
As a victim of a violent crime at a very young age, I deeply admire how brave she was to stand up to her abuser. That takes tremendous effort and a very strong ego.
What we're ultimately seeing here is a gaping hole where stronger children's rights laws should be. It's important to understand that this could even happen in the United States, not just Yemen. It doesn't have to do with religion because Muslims are hardly the only ones guilty of abusing their children. It is good to know that even the Yemeni government frowns on this and that this little girl can be somewhere to recover.
Rachel: "It doesn't have to do with religion because Muslims are hardly the only ones guilty of abusing their children."
I don't see how that statement follows logically. If a number of religions set a precedent for child abuse in their sacred texts, and Islam is one of those religions, how does this have nothing to do with religion?
Put another way, there is nothing in the major organized religions that explicitly declares that children should be protected from underaged marriages. (Nothing in the Ten C's about it, for example.) I would say that is a pretty big failing among those religions.
How completely despicable... Her "husband" justified her rape as his "right".
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics
""Yes I was intimate with her, but I have done nothing wrong, as she is my wife and I have the right and no one can stop me," he said while sitting in jail." Husband of the little 8 year old girl.
All too often, some Muslims believe their wives (and females in general) are property rather than human beings. It's the same type of mentality for terrorists who view Jews not as humans but "pigs".
@ OwlMirror, Close is not good enough to assert they're one and the same. Arabic is full of words that are close-sounding and share the same root, but are completely different. Transliteration makes it harder to determine. It is still possibly the same place though, the country doesn't have that much money for services.
I was born in Sana'a while my parents were there during my father's time working with a Kuwaiti company helping to build a hospital there. It's a poor country, and this girl is lucky to have been in an area under government control when a good part of the country is still under the control of various autonomous tribes.
People like to blame Islamic law for a lot of things but I have news for you, Islamic law is the only way the Middle East will ever attain rule of law at all. English common law which forms the basis for our legal system in the US allowed people to be burned at the stake and mandated execution for theft above the value of a few shillings. The legacy of Napoleonic code is responsible for leniency for honor killings in Jordan and Egypt.
@Quidam, Aisha is a peculiar case. Fundamentally the vast majority of Sunnis in Yemen follow the Shafi'i school of Islam, which would mean that they would not accept marriage with a nine-year old as being normal in any way, and the Shias in Yemen are mostly Zaidi's making them moderate and equally unlikely to condone the behavior. Having lived in the Middle East for years as an Arab, no one I ever met (including fundamentalists and kooks) has thought it was acceptable to marry an underage girl.
I love how people so very obviously unfamiliar with the culture and religion are quick to blame one or the other for the actions of a few individuals. Remember this is in the newspaper because this is news to Yemenis.
Just expanding on this thought a bit...
She was able to petition the law, because her relatives at the very least told her that was an option, as apathetic as they were otherwise. She managed to escape her "husband" by whatever means, and she had great personal fortitude and determination in actually going to the court all on her own.
What of those girls in similar situations where the parents aren't even that helpful? What of those girls in similar situations where their "husbands" are better jailers? What of those girls who come to believe that all adults — and even the will of God — are indeed against them; that there is no hope to be found in trying to escape anyway?
Is it time to start a pedophilia blogroll?
Speaking of culture. Moolaade is an interesting and moving African (Burkina Faso) movie about some women who take a stand on female genital mutilation.
Great movie check it out.
http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s1407941.htm
http://imdb.com/title/tt0416991/
@Angrynight
While I can't readily agree that accepting Islamic Law is a good thing, thank you for contributing that bit of information. It certainly helps to explain the reality of life in that region, and I can now at least accept it as a less evil alternative. If rule of law, in whatever form, protects this girl and others like her, I can do nothing other than offer my support.
@54 "Having lived in the Middle East for years as an Arab, no one I ever met (including fundamentalists and kooks) has thought it was acceptable to marry an underage girl."
Then please explain this to me, because I'm seeing a serious disconnect (or a gross error at Wikipedia, which is not out of the question, but unlikely in this case):
"Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad. She stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, when the marriage was consummated in Medina."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_wives
Remember, this is the singularly most holy prophet in the entire religion, who claimed direct communcation with god, so this action is unquestionably sanctioned by the Islamic belief system. Has *anyone* in the history of Islam ever condemned Muhammad for this underage marriage?
The LDS may have publicly repudiated polygyny, but they haven't stepped too far away from it.
I was recently told by the husband of a practising Mormon that it is generally believed in the church that good Mormon men will have multiple wives once they reach Heaven.
Duncan, you might also want to ask how it is that any Jew can claim to oppose polygamy, since a number of their greatest kings and prophets had multiple wives.
@Duncan, I was going to say, "read the WHOLE wikipedia article" but I checked first and it has apparently changed considerably since I last saw it. A version of a page on the matter a year or so ago discussed this issue in much greater detail but I can't find that info anymore.
Note that I said the Aisha issue is peculiar because a lot of information about the Islamic religion and Muhammad is related through her (see "hadith" and "sanad") and it is her own account that tells us when the marriage was consummated (age nine). Muslim scholars accept this as true, unless they are certain sects of Shiaa. The Islamic religion determines eligiblity for consummation based not on age, but on gestation (i.e. passage of puberty and physical maturity) and Muslim ulama (scholars) attribute the young age of her marriage as having been a rare case of very early puberty. Believe it if you want, or don't, there is no evidence for either. However it is significant that this issue has been addressed and opinions on it have been disseminated, and it also answers why the action by Muhammad was not condemned. This is not a novel issue for Muslims.
The other side of this is that Muhammad did not regularly marry prepubescent girls, his first wife was twenty years his senior. Most pedophiles are repeat offenders that start at a young age and a man in Muhammad's position of legal and supreme authority had the power to be as much of a pedophile as he wanted. This lends some credibility to the early maturity theory. Regardless the point is that the issue has been mitigated sufficiently that Muslims do not generally hesitate to condemn pedophilia.
@raatrani
I understand where you are coming from. I myself am opposed to religious law, especially in the US where I live. However here in the US we already have the cultural and historical background for secularism, something that the Middle East has not yet developed naturally and which cannot be effectively imposed from outside.
Meanwhile a religiously oriented political party in Egypt called Kifaya is the only real hope of establishing consistent government accountability in that country, as opposed to Hosni Mubarak's despotic rule.
The "Yes, it IS Islam's/religions' fault" force me to retreat into silence, since they show themselves to be inflexibly in possession of the one and only truth.
I pose a simple question: what would they do about this, that we are not already doing?
Frankly, I assume the answers will be as full of fairytale horseshit as the abstinence only crowd "solutions" for sex education, or even the "gay conversion" programs of the Xian fuckwit right, but I'm willling to be surprised.
(This was too much like pure chum, PZ. I hope it was posted without much reflection.)
Also, with the Mormons, please separate the FLDS church from LDS. They are very different denominations and have no connections whatsoever.
why? does one sect NOT have magic underpants?
fucking ridiculous.
a rose by any other name...
Wikipedia does have version history. If you click on the "history" tab, you can look at the various revisions going back to Nov. 2004, and link to that old page that has the text that you think is correct.
It's more work, but it should be there.
It is not about religion - it is about MEN - they do this because they can and use religion - ANY religion to conveniently justify it - READ THE HEADLINES - teacher accused of molestation/rape, coach accused of molestation/rape, priest accused of molestation/rape. pastor accused of molestation/rape, doctor accused of molestation/rape, neighbor accused of molestation/rape, father, step father, uncle, grandfather, son, cousin of children, murder of children, sex trade targeting children, babies as young as 3 months old raped to death in aids ridden Africa - what is the bottom line? Who are the perpetrators that are molesting/raping/killing children/girls/boys/women? it is men - MEN! MEN ARE THE BOTTOM LINE - GET IT - IT IS MEN!!!!!!!! SO fucking - LOOK TO YOURSELVES and the perception of male privilege that infects the world - HEAL YOURSELVES -quit making excuses for your miserable gender - YOU, MEN are the problem and it is up to YOU TO FIX IT!
It's okay because they're religious.
p.s.
oh yeah -i expect to get the whole obligatory - wow gwyllion you sure have an issue/anger/rage/problem with men feedback - all i have to say back is - yup - try living as a woman/child in this world of male privilege, where a simple walk down the street at night can turn into a life or death incident - or try to think what a world might be like where a simple backpacking trip alone is an impossibility w/o firearms to make a woodland confrontation an equal playing field. My post make you hostile? uncomfortable? defensive?
The truth hurts doesn't it? i say again - HEAL YOURSELVES!!!!!!! or at least rape/molest/murder/fuck somebody your own size for a change! Assholes!
Will someone please fix that record player?
Gwyllion, if your characterization of "The Male" were accurate, what point would there be in demanding that men fix themselves? They would never, ever do it.
The stereotype of feminists in particular as irrational, frothing, borderline-delusional misandrists with a nine year old's understanding of psychological and sociological complexities is vicious, demeaning, and destructive. Please stop feeding it.
(Seriously, there are enough problems with misogyny, discrimination, covert sexism, and violence without turning yourself into an anecdote that some misogynist can use to support his [or in some cases, sadly, her] contention that women are incapable of rational thought.)
gwyllion, I like to you to meet a friends of mine, Holbach. Holbach meet gwyllion. You two should have plenty to chat about, I'm off to the bar.
I've only spent 40 years among the Mormons, so some of you are obviously more expert than I am about this.
There is occasionally some talk about polygyny in the next life, although generally accompanied by much protestation on all sides about not understanding how it works, yet, and that it would be nearly impossible without direct intervention by God.
In 40 years (across the US and in Europe, too) I've only heard hints of anybody wanting or thinking that polygyny MIGHT return to human society...twice, I think, and both in Finland from delusional men who were obviously head cases and were kept around more out of charity than out of their doctrinal wisdom.
And there may have been once or twice otherwise when discussions in men's meetings might seem to be leading the direction where somebody might want to say that it would be a pleasant idea. However, I found that even a slight mention of polyandry was enough to call a screeching halt for those idiots' dreams.
Joseph Smith had some conflicting impressions about marriage, anyway, since the Book of Mormon contains a passage condemning polygyny very strongly, although it does leave in a chance that God can specifically command it for a specific period of time. That same passage, however, condemns David's and Solomon's lives.
In this story, an 8-year-old girl is obviously horrible. However, it's harder for me to judge about the 9-year-old 1500 years ago, since I'm not very familiar with Arab culture then. I'm not extremely familiar with particular parts of brain maturity, although I know that major structures are still forming and organizing in the brain from 16-25 years old. Which, again, is not to excuse either Mohammed or the current idiot, just to note that morally and scientifically, a 9-year-old can be nearly as socially mature as an 18-year-old in some cultures, and this story's 8-year-old sounds more mature than many twenty-somethings I know.
How do you bring that together, though? Should we ban marriage until 25? There are quite a few medical reasons why not, and many social reasons, too. We could at least get a good cross-cultural absolute rule that pre-pubescent girls get you a death penalty. As far as boys that age, well, I have a typical USAian double-standard. It was kind of every boy's fantasy from an early age to have an encounter with a grown woman, even if all the women we knew found teenage boys to be stinky and unimpressive.
There is a reason, for some of you less rigorous thinkers, why this FLDS cult is mostly in Texas instead of Utah, now. And in 40 years among the Mormons, including time even in Utah, I have never seen even a whisper of a chance of anyone living in polygamy. And since the LDS church meetings involve many activities of mother AND father, it would be fairly obvious.
But keep on, people, at least I know to discount anything you might say about Catholicism or Islam in your ignorance.
It might have been fun to see Romney elected president, to see whether baptists or lunatic fringe atheists blew a gasket first. I grew up as a Mormon in Baptist country, though, so you'll need to work to catch up. Maybe a special section telling lies about Mormons at TAM every year, like the revivals did in Mobile. Although "mormons can't ride in cars" and "mormons can't wear makeup" are kind of tame these days. And I suspect any stories about Mormons having more than one wife would have made it back to school.
It would be funny to see the Church trying to re-institute polygamy, anyway, since the Mormons are a very well-educated group of people, including the women. I suspect something that may sound possible in the distant past or the abstract, after-death future would sound a little worse as a possibility for daily life.
#61 "Duncan, you might also want to ask how it is that any Jew can claim to oppose polygamy, since a number of their greatest kings and prophets had multiple wives."
Ok, I'm game. How is it that any Jew can claim to oppose polygamy, since a number of their greatest kings and prophets had multiple wives?
The failings of one belief system do not automatically make the others correct. In case anyone hasn't inferred it yet, I find all evidence-free belief systems to be problematic. It just happens to be Islam under discussion in this particualr thread.
Ungtss,
"And as bad as Islam is in some ways, it's much better than the native Arab pagan culture."
Really, who's been feeding you that nonsense? The Muslims practiced genocide on those of "native Arab pagan culture." Kind of hard to be worse than that.
In fact the norms of Mohammed's day held that old men shouldn't marry little children and they found his desires for Aisha to be questionable. Allah cleared it all up however by providing direct commandments indicating that Mohammad should be able to fulfill his child lust.
"Like blaming atheism for the soviet purges."
Actually more like blaming communism for the soviet purges, which is perfectly acceptable. Communism does scapegoat the upper classes and those who collude with them, so naturally there were purges. Just like Islam denigrates certain groups and blames them for all the worlds ills, and thus leads to persecution of those groups.
Besides it is based on Islamic law, and is practiced in many non-Arab countries. Iran being an example:
"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister... It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband's house, rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven. ["Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990]
"In June, 2002 Iranian authorities approved a law raising the age at which girls can marry without parental consent from 9 to 13. The elected legislature actually passed the bill in 2000, but the "Guardian Council", a 12-man body of conservative clerics, vetoed it as contradicting Islamic Sharia law. Iran's clerical establishment insists that the marriage of young girls is a means to combat immorality. The Expediency Council, which arbitrates between the elected parliament and the theocratic Guardian Council, timidly passed the measure. The law however does not change the age at which children can get married (nine for girls and 14 for boys), but says that girls below the age of 13 and boys younger than 15 need their parents' permission and the approval of a "Righteous Court." Reformists state that the new law does not protect children, since most of those who marry at such a young age do so by force."
etc. etc. I could go on and not just for Iran but other non-Arab countries.
I have a friend from India and part of the reason they have arranged marriages between children is because the adult Muslims would raid from the north and take unmarried women (little girls) as wives.
Afghanistan child bride
Pakistan:
Girl, 4, marries man, 45, to settle Pakistani feud
AFP
February 9, 2007
DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan -- A four-year-old girl was married to a 45-year-old man in a remote Pakistan town to settle a feud, leading to the arrest of 12 people from two families, police said Friday.
The minor, Sumaira, was given in marriage to the middle-aged man, Mahboob Ahmed, as a punishment because the girl's maternal uncle, Mohammad Farooq, had eloped with the adult niece of the bridegroom, police said.
Same in Malaysia, and so forth.
"One thing about Americans, as this comment thread bears out, we sure love prison rape."
Well some of us, and only going by research based on stand up comics and comment threads.
"Wow, good on that girl! If she's able to take charge of her life like this at 8, she could have a bright future ahead of her."
Not where she lives. You do understand that she lives in Yemen, is female, soon to be a divorcee? Used goods just isn't that valuable over there. Especially if the female is uppity like she is.
Joseph Smith had some conflicting impressions[stop]
to say the least.
I grew up as a Mormon in Baptist country, though, so you'll need to work to catch up.
I pity you for the obvious handicaps you have had to face, then. polygamy is the least of your worries.
How would having a mormon president be any different than a scientologist as president?
I always get a kick out of the brainwashed calling sects OTHER than their own "cults".
Religion is not ENTIRELY to blame here but let's concede that religion informs the culture as much or more than culture informs religion. I do strongly believe that the more strict and reclusive a religion is that you will see a correlation to higher incidences of abuse, mental, physical, and sexual. The further they get from reality and society the closer they get to madness and depravity.
Really, it's difficult to separate the culture from the religion, they're often one and the same. When I reported on this story, I pointed out that the 30-year old husband was breaking the Yemeni law which states that a child younger than 15 can be married, but cannot have sex until she is physically and mentally mature enough to do so.
That's why her husband is sitting in jail.
http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com/?p=284
@gwyllion: I've heard of several cases where women were the molesters. Let's just accept that we're all human, we all have urges, and one of the bases of civilization is that we don't give in to them. I for one am disgusted by the idea of rape, and the guy who molested my last girlfriend is still on the top of my list for when the revolution comes, even though we've broken up and so the motivation of wanting to get revenge for my blue balls no longer applies. It's just wrong.
@gwyllion,
Women in our society are just as capable of child abuse, both physical and sexual. The difference is we have a bizarre tolerance for female abuse of male children and female pedophiles tend to prey on their own children rather than going out and kidnapping (thus generating news about MEN).
@Brian Macker. One of the principal reasons the United States will continue to have problems in Iraq, is the failure of the average American to distinguish one Muslim sect from another. The Ayatollahs' opinions do not apply to the vast majority of Muslims who are Sunni and who find the very concept of Ayatollahs blasphemous, and even among the Shi'aa, there is extensive sectarianism. Beyond that, you assume the Ayatollahs expect their every opinion to be followed and read thoroughly. The same man wrote a little treatise on the acceptability of bestiality, the purpose as it is with many of their writings, is to generate novel jurisprudential opinions. Even in the world of Shi'itism, it's publish or perish. Especially with the Shiaa I should say.
As for the article you pulled out of Robert Spencer's scare/snuff site (which in turn was from the Sun), do I really need to point out it's a tribal group that has had that as part of their practice for centuries before Islam came to the region?
But really, Robert Spencer? There's a bucket of chum if I ever saw it. For an "expert" he has a lot of gaps in his arsenal. Basically if it doesn't help his cause, he's never heard of it. The epitome of confirmation bias.
@Owlmirror- I know I can look up the history, but I remember it was it's own page at the time and *sigh* quite frankly, I can't be bothered to go through all that trouble to pull up a source that's all too easily ignored and refuted (it is still Wikipedia). Besides, that information can be found anywhere. We find ourselves in a time when the internet is full of every single argument against Islam and every counter-argument. I used to spend a lot of time trying to get people to calm down and accept that Islam isn't the absolute worst thing since unsliced bread. To be clear, I don't want people to love Islam, or Christianity, or FSMism. I don't mind when people criticize specifics about all religion or individual faiths.
I'm just not a fan of the whole "Islam is the end of the world!" viewpoint or people just throwing everything at the rhetorical wall waiting for something to stick.
If it is Islam, if it's something generally accepted and practiced by everyone in the religion, fine. I'm not going to argue with you. But, if it's just some random assholes...*shrugs* Do you have a way of ridding the world of assholes? Let us all know.
@angrynight: "Do you have a way of ridding the world of assholes? Let us all know."
I believe abdominoperineal resection does the trick.
Wouldn't we then have to call awful people colostomy bags?
This is utterly sick!
Who needs common sense when you have a holly text permitting you to do whatever you want to. How fucked up they must be to do things like that!
Holly text?
Like, a book about christmas?
I knew there was something funny about an old man who watched kids all the time...
Firstly, Holbach did you not read the story or something? or did you miss the bit where her mother and aunt did nothing?
As for what does religion have to do with this? Religion is used to underpin cultural practices and if a religion teaches that men are primary and women and children have no power and must submit to the will of husbands and fathers then you get abuses that are justified from behind a religious shield.
Religion is also used to keep people ignorant and uneducated, I'm sure this Brit does not need to tell you Americans about that problem? Ignorant, uneducated people are easier to control because they believe what authority figures tell them and have few tools to think independently with.
This is why there is this war over how and about what our children are educated with the religious since they are well aware of what happen when people are given the tools to think independentaly and have mulitiple authority figures Dancing is just the least of it.
@ Gwyllion:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258043,00.html
http://wcco.com/topstories/sexual.relationship.sex.2.368153.html
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/10/25/Hillsborough/Police__Teacher_had_s.sh…
Three in less than a minute, and I searched "news teacher sex," no filter for gender. Turns out we ARE an equal-opportunity society.
Finally around comment Nr.78 somebody mentioned it. If she had been "ready or mature", which I assume means having started menstruating (which round these parts does not mean sexually mature), this would have been no news. Everything just fine and dandy. Likewise if she had been all of 15. According to the article neither forced marriage nor rape and beatings were the issues, but simply age. Because of her age she was not considered married by the court, but was considered raped. This was only news because she is so young. Are forced marriages in Yemen legal (and how can it be proved, a problem that had arisen in Europe), is rape within marriage even a crime, are beatings simply a man's rights? As an aside, I should mention that in the country wherein I live in the middle of Europe rape within marriage was only declared a crime liable to prosecution fairly recently. My, but there were tirades mostly from members of the political parties with "Christian" in their names about how this was absolutely untenable and would rock the very foundations of marriage itself.
Free extra facts ......
Yemen has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and in this case appears to have done well by the child.
The two countries which have not yet ratified are Somalia and the USA. Somalia has the excuse of not having had a government in all that time. The excuse from the self-proclaimed "Land of the Free" we are still waiting for.
Has anyone even asked Clinton or Obama about this?
The reason the US doesn't ratify international treaties is that it still has a hangover from the Monroe Doctrine, ie isolationism, and therefore doesn't want any outside influence on its governance
at least, that's what I think it is...
it's been a while since I've read up on this.
You know, I have to ask what the problem with polygamy is, anyway? If 3 or more people want to enter into a contract to love and care for one another, what makes that worse in any way than any two homo- or hetero-sexual people who want to marry for the same reasons?
8-year-olds? That's child abuse. The problem there isn't polygamy! As long as everyone who enters into a polygamous marraige is an adult who does it of their own free will, why does anyone have a problem with it?
As far as I see it, if we expect to let gays and lesbians marry, what non-religiously-based reason does anyone have to prevent odd numbers of consenting adults from forming family groups as they see fit? Can anyone explain why polygamy/polyandry/polygyny between consenting adults is wrong or should be supressed or criminalized?
I noticed earlier someone in the FLDS story saying something along the lines of; 'The Mormons were willing to break the law / commit felonies by having polygamous marraiges, so I don't have any sympathy' - When the LDS began the practice, there was no law against it. The law was changed specificly to make trouble for the Mormons at the time. This is one of the clearest examples I have seen of just what would happen if any one sect in the US gained power - give them a chance, and they'll immediately start to change laws to prevent the free excercise of other groups. The early history of the LDS church is an interesting period in the history of the early USA as well - It's worth reading for the history alone.
Icthyic: 'A rose by any other name.'
Why not them Catholics then? Or Baptists? They're no more 'LDS' anymore than they are Catholic. There are similarities between the FLDS and the LDS, but there are many similarities between the FLDS and the Catholic, too. They don't claim to be LDS any more than they claim to be Catholic. Why bring in an uninvolved sect?
The FLDS obviously have some very different practices and belief from the LDS, enough that both of them see a clear seperation between one another. They went their seperate ways long ago, and there has been no interaction between them and the main branch since they split off. Rather than trying to tar one with the brush from another, why not deal with each on their own merits?
I agree with you that both are ludicrous beliefs, but suggesting that the LDS are equivalent to those criminal nutcases in Texas isn't going to gain you any friends. Both may be ludicrous, but one of them is feloniously illegal. One of them appears to have child marraige and rape as a major tenet of the faith! That's rather a large difference, isn't it?
It's funny. Even in a group of hard-core atheists and freethinkers like Pharyngula, I still see Catholicism and some of the older, less-evangelical faiths being treated with kid gloves while other groups are called 'cults'. THEY'RE. ALL. CULTS.
Me, I'd judge which group was worse by their actions - How long have the highest levels of the Holy C been hiding child-abusing priests from the law? That seems far worse than anything the LDS have ever done, but it's the LDS that everyone is happy to label a cult. I don't recall the LDS being involved in witch-burning, or in the inquisition either. What makes them so frightening that so many other 'christian' sects have to spend so much time claiming that the LDS aren't even Christian, and are bound straight for hell?
It's all a matter of which you're raised in. Whichever one you're raised in as a child, that one is far more likely to seem normal to you as an adult, even if you no longer believe in the religion itself. You think 'magic underwear' is silly, I think transubstantiation, Mary-worship, and the Triune God theory are silly. But every time you say 'magic underwear' you tell me that you don't know what you're talking about, as surely as if you'd said 'evolution is totally random and unguided!'
The catholic church gets kudos for trying to stop it once it was out. The FLDS don't, because they just tried to run and hide and keep it going.
For the record, I espouse polyamory and don't see anything wrong with plural marriage, but in some cases it's illegal (bigamy) because marriage can be used as a tool in con games etc.
wazza,
I realise the feeling is still alive and well in the US but when I was taught the Monroe Doctrine it was as a deal - "you stay out of our business and we'll stay out of yours" - more honoured in the breach, as they say .........
Even if President Monroe's thoughts had been observed to the letter these 185 years it's still a fairly weak excuse to have your children less well protected in law than almost every other child on the planet.
Along with everything else, it protects the child's right to freedom of thought and (from) religion rather better than seems to be happening right now. Or maybe I just read the wrong selection of blogs!
They also didn't sign the Kyoto protocol, preferring to let the free market deal with the problem, because it's profitable to protect the environment.
wazza,
That's untenable. I ask you to look only at Orissa, India - thriving local sea fisheries destroyed, mangrove swamps which protected the coast destroyed, groundwater polluted with knock-on effects on inland farming, local population starving and driven from their homes, etc. Why? For profit. The amazing scheme for making money out of this coast is now unprofitable because of the devastation caused.
By the time the last and most recalcitrant businessman realises he could also make a profit from protecting the environment our species will be long gone.
By the way, I live in a small town which happened in the early stages of the industrial revolution - nothing here previously. It has taken about a century to restore the environment to working order. It took effort and investment and I'm lucky to live in a reasonably affluent country, as well has to have herons and assorted waterfowl back on the river through the middle of town. None of the work was done for profit and none of it was driven by people for whom profit is the motive. To give them their due, some of them are now glad it happened which is not to say they would have thought of it in the first place.
This is entirely about Islam. It is legal in Yemen to fuck a 9 year old girl within the context of a heterosexual marriage as long as the girls parents approve of it, which the often do because Muhammad did it too.
Maureen: sorry, sarcasm doesn't come across well on a thread like this.
Sorry I misread you!
No, you couldn't. Loathsome as child rape is, there are large numbers of people (including me) who oppose the death penalty in any circumstances. Many countries have abolished it, including almost all European countries and most of Latin America, and the trend is still in that direction.
LesserOfTwoWeevils:
I have only been around this board for a few months but never have I seen any religion treated with 'kid gloves'.
Cult: A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. (American Heritage)
I believe the roots of LDS were extemely cultish, and therefore the description is apt.
You're generally argument is that because th LDS haven't burnt any witches recently, it is 'better' than other more mainstream beliefs. The lesser of two weevils, if you will have it. This isn't an argument for LDS, it is an argument against religion in general.
Maxi that definition simply entrenches traditional cults vs new fangled, minority or immigrant beliefs. It is tyranny by the unthinking majority. All codified belief systems are cults, catholicism is a cult, protestantism is too, so is Islam. Just because they are big belief systems of long standing does not make them fundamentally different from groups like FLDS, the scientologists etc.
Peter, I quite agree with you. I was merely responding to the poster who complained of the LDS being labelled a cult.
I have lived in communities where you could aptly say "the wonderful, serene, peace-loving religion of Islam." Religion doesn't make someone a criminal pedophile or a crappy father. Atheist unwarranted 'rightousness' is just as tedious as the religious kind.
I noticed earlier someone in the FLDS story saying something along the lines of; 'The Mormons were willing to break the law / commit felonies by having polygamous marraiges, so I don't have any sympathy' - When the LDS began the practice, there was no law against it. The law was changed specificly to make trouble for the Mormons at the time.
Although federal laws against polygamy began with the Morril Act of 1962 which were reactionary against the Mormon practice, polygamy was against Illinois law as early as 1833 where it was practiced in Nauvoo by Joseph Smith and his close associates.
"Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within the State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offended shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years." (Revised Laws of Illinois, Vandalia: Greiner & Sherman, 1833, pg. 198-199).
If any of you ever wondered what happened to punctuation, there's your answer: the 19th century stole it all.
Some day, our descendants will say the same about us and oil, and they won't find it so funny.
#84: "Wouldn't we then have to call awful people colostomy bags?"
I think the precise expletive would be "Drain-valve!"
Try yelling it out your car window at the next person who cuts you off.
Absolutely disgusting. I hope these people choke for ruining a poor little girl's childhood.
As far as I know, that convention would abolish the death penalty for minors, and the Busheviki don't want that... that would be "soft on crime" or something, shock horror...
That, together with the failure to join the ICC*, was when the Europeans started to realize just how wacko -- or at least incompetent -- the Busheviki are.
* Message that apparently came across to Americans: See, I don't want foreign powers to have the right to put our soldiers to court on trumped-up charges based on antiamericanism. Message that came across to the rest of the world: Yes, people, yes. You really can trust your eyes and ears. We really do want the right to commit war crimes with impunity. *blblblblbl* *nyah*
It has of course ratified plenty.
Which ones haven't? Russia, Belarus? It's a prerequisite for joining the EU, and even the extreme right parties have long stopped calling for its reintroduction each time a particularly heinous crime hits the media.
#105 That should be 1862 (not 1962) for the Morrill Act.
#74
Really, who's been feeding you that nonsense? The Muslims practiced genocide on those of "native Arab pagan culture." Kind of hard to be worse than that.
Actually no -- you need to read up. The previous pagan cultures practiced tribal genocide on each other, AND sacrificed children to the God Molech, AND had institutionalized rape during war, AND had a justice system based on superstitution rather than evidence (Sharia, despite its shortcomings, is at least based on evidence, and cut themselves to try and convince their God to listen to them, AND sold women like chattel (rather than having a dowry, as was introduced by Islam.
Get an anthropology text. Or even take a look at the Old Testament.
In fact the norms of Mohammed's day held that old men shouldn't marry little children and they found his desires for Aisha to be questionable. Allah cleared it all up however by providing direct commandments indicating that Mohammad should be able to fulfill his child lust.
Where did you get the idea that God commanded him to do it? Read the materials carefully. They say he did it, but not that God told him too.
"Like blaming atheism for the soviet purges."
Actually more like blaming communism for the soviet purges, which is perfectly acceptable. Communism does scapegoat the upper classes and those who collude with them, so naturally there were purges.
If it were only the rich Christians who were killed, your argument would make sense. But poor Christians were killed by the millions, because they were Communists and atheists. That's not to say all atheists go around killing Christians. But neither do all Muslims go around marrying 8 year olds. Some do. And that's why it's stupid to overgeneralize.
Besides it is based on Islamic law, and is practiced in many non-Arab countries. Iran being an example:
"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister... It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband's house, rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.
["Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990]
Listen, genius. Tahrirolvasyleh is not Islam. It was written by the Ayatollah, 1300 years after Muhammed roamed the Earth.
"In June, 2002 Iranian authorities approved a law raising the age at which girls can marry without parental consent from 9 to 13. The elected legislature actually passed the bill in 2000, but the "Guardian Council", a 12-man body of conservative clerics, vetoed it as contradicting Islamic Sharia law. Iran's clerical establishment insists that the marriage of young girls is a means to combat immorality. The Expediency Council, which arbitrates between the elected parliament and the theocratic Guardian Council, timidly passed the measure. The law however does not change the age at which children can get married (nine for girls and 14 for boys), but says that girls below the age of 13 and boys younger than 15 need their parents' permission and the approval of a "Righteous Court." Reformists state that the new law does not protect children, since most of those who marry at such a young age do so by force."
etc. etc. I could go on and not just for Iran but other non-Arab countries.
Maybe you should travel to these countries to see the conditions in the bush before you make moral judgments. While I certainly side with you on the law, until you've seen what it's like for an orphan of 14 to try to make it alone and unmarried in the backwoods of Afghanistan, you have no idea why this is permitted in Islamic law.
Girl, 4, marries man, 45, to settle Pakistani feud
You won't find precedent for that in Islam. You will find it in the Arabic cultural context that predates Islam.
You're overgeneralizing and playing fast and loose with the facts. An easy way to maintain a point of view, I suppose.
Oops, two different referents of "it" in the last sentence. Having abolished the death penalty is of course the prerequisite.
Each Swiss canton, BTW, has apparently abolished the death penalty on its own. I once saw the constitution of the Republic (!) of Geneva.
Nope. It's because you can't worship God and Mammon Stalin at the same time. And even if you could, Stalin's paranoia would still descend upon you, as it did on every single Crimean Tatar, every single Chechen, and so on.
But poor Christians were killed by the millions, because they were Communists and atheists.
Nope. It's because you can't worship God and Mammon Stalin at the same time. And even if you could, Stalin's paranoia would still descend upon you, as it did on every single Crimean Tatar, every single Chechen, and so on.
So even though Stalin was an atheist, and even though he expressly killed Christians because they are Christians ... it had to do with something else? Say, POWER!?
Bingo. Apply that same reasoning to Islam and you'll be getting somewhere.
Re #109 David Marjanović. Death penalty in Europe. You can't join the Council of Europe, which is much more inclusive than the EU, without at least imposing a moratorium on the death penalty. European countries that still use it are Belarus, as you say, and according to Wikipedia, Kazakhstan, which has a tiny overlap with Europe as geographically defined. Russia and Latvia (which is in the EU) are the only others that haven't formally abolished it, but they do have a moratorium.
Thanks for the information.
(Funny how I correctly guessed Belarus simply from the fact that it's a dictature.)
FYI - The Freedom From Religion Foundation puts out a good newspaper called Freethought Today which has a feature called Black Collar Crime Blotter, By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them. It's heart breaking to read... makes me wonder how I could have believed that pure codswallop from their ilk for 50 years...*sigh* I prefer PZ's spineless squid.
That's rather a large difference, isn't it?
you're not quite getting it yet...
THEY'RE. ALL. CULTS.
NOW you're getting it.
Religion is just the means to justify your actions.
A decent person uses religion to justify decent actions. (Well, you know, a heck of a lot of people seem to really need a reason and reward for doing the right thing. Whatever.)
A chauvinistic pedophilic misogynist uses religion and law to justify his actions. (She's my wife, therefore I can have sex with her. Oh, well, who cares if she wanted it or not?)
Who needs either a God or Satan when humans can be both angelic or demonic without a supernatural being's help?
Funny, what do you really know about pre-Islamic pagan culture that has not been filtered through the Abrahamic/Mohammedian lens?
"Sharia, despite its shortcomings, is at least based on evidence". Feh, unless a woman is the witness. Let's just say that the culture sucks, and that the religion has not done anything to mitigate "teh suck".
This girl has moxie, I hope she survives and gets the hell out of hell with her brain and her genitals intact.
Lastly, with all this talk about Fundamentalist Islam and Fundamentalist LDS, what's up with the whole porno-heaven thing? Die as a martyr, get a gaggle of houris, die as a church elder, get your own planet with divine wives- the theology is based on an adolescent male sexual fantasy.
Hmmm, did Hugh Hefner die in the 60's and we're living in HIS afterlife?
Hey, let's put this in some of the old comments as well-- anything that gives Expelled a kick in the pants is probably a good thing!
I love the caption under the photo of the husband it says the "husband YT".
See? it is always the whiteman at fault! Down with YT!!
Someone should steal this cute little girl away and save her and give her a good feminist left upbringing, teach her about the rights of poor girls by a reading of the Vagina Monologues and the "coochie snorcher"...
Rather, Christians were officially targeted (sometimes, when they weren't officially supported) by Stalin's regime because it was Communist--not because it was atheist. It's Marxism-Leninism which holds that organized religion is a threat worthy of forcible suppression; atheism is neither necessary nor sufficient to imply that position. Stalin didn't even attempt to use the nonexistence of God as a justification for his policies, whereas plenty of nasty stuff has been done by Muslims (and Jews, and Christians, and Hindus) explicitly in the name of their religion.
There's a significant difference there. Although most Muslims don't approve of marrying small children, it's at least possible to justify that stance using Islamic doctrines and texts, just as it's possible for a Christian to justify genocide by pointing to Biblical passages. An atheist, on the other hand, can't make an atheism-based argument for persecuting believers; few social policies of any sort can be deduced from "there is no God."
Incidentally, I wasn't aware that Soviet Christians were killed by the millions, specifically for being Christian (as opposed to being members of the wrong ethnic group, or being perceived as disloyal to the party). Source?
Anton Mates: You actually need a source to prove that millions of Christians were killed by the Stalinists? Hawhawhaw!
But before you read up on that, read this, and read up on Jewish complicity in that virtually unknown holocaust:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html
Anton Mates: You actually need a source to prove that millions of Christians were killed by the Stalinists? Hawhawhaw!
don't be any more of a moron than you already are.
that's NOT what he asked for.
read for comprehension, or stfu:
killed by the millions, specifically for being Christian
he asked for the source for THAT. that there were xians killed, along with many, many others is not the question.
From your own link, Yagoda:
Not a word there about Christians being murdered en masse for their religion. I'm well aware that it happened; Stalin and Khruschev executed thousands of Orthodox priests, for instance. But, again--millions?
Ichth: do you really really really want to re-visit Stalins policies as pertains to religion, or are you just a moron with two flapping lips that go "Ichtyc" every time you open it up....
It is more than adequately documented in the historical record the religious, and specifically in the case of Russia, the Christians, were targeted. Maybe you should *read a book* or two about it--if you can read Russian.
In lieu of that, here is one authors analysis (with links) of that argument.
Link:
http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2006/12/jewish-bolshevism.html
http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2006/12/jewish-bolshevism.html
that is the biggest piece of anti-semitic claptrap I've read this year.
laughable that you give it credence.
I'm confused. The link Yagoda referenced states "Considering that so many of the killers' victims were Jews themselves, it is dubious how much, if any, killing was being deliberately targeted at "Christians" merely for the fact that they were Christians,"
and "This makes the anti-Semitic rant that "Jewish Communists killed 20 million Russian Christians" particularly vicious."
And this is supposed to support the claim that "millions" of Christians were killed on the basis of their Christianity?
What did I miss?
Anton: exactly what religion do you think these people practiced? ? "Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers." Neo-paganism? Greek Orthodox Bolshevism? What spin!
Follow the links....read the books, follow the deaths to their cause: their lives, and their beliefs.
Maybe they were just a large hybrid class of 'gypsies' to you, such as the other 6 million+ who died in Germany? When you put a generic label on someones socio-religious origins, and attemp to revise, or cauterize their heritage, you are no better than those who did the killing.
Like I said above, I am not going to write the history books into a blogpost, but for you, kmarissa, and others who knee jerk, and trip all over themselves trying to pander to Jewish ears and get apoplectic at the idea of anti-semitism( but have no 'Jewish friends' to talk about it with,nor care about the other semites in the world who are getting there arses kicked) here is a s/ths/th from an Israeli perspective from that same article:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html
Thanks for reading my post with the same comprehension that you used to read the website that you yourself cited.
I guess I didn't miss anything the first time after all.
kmarissa:No, really, thanks for your quote mining and diversionary eyes!
This thread has veered into other territory than it ws intended, but the idea that you are knee jerking and crappy flopping all over the issue is prima facie that you do not wish to know the answer to your query, or that you even read the post or its links other than to quote mine them.
In light of that, the evidence that Yagoda, and other jewish Bolsheviks et al had it in for Christians is indisputable as Russia was populated by Orthodox Christians; the evidence that later victims of Stalinist paranoia were Jewish is relatively moot, though not insignificant, like saying that 'Hitler hung even his own kind from meathooks' as a way of equivocating the Holocaust to prove that he hated everybody, not just Jews.
"Considering that so many of the killers' victims were Jews themselves, it is dubious how much, if any, killing was being deliberately targeted at "Christians" merely for the fact that they were Christians."
Read the associated posts: then again, maybe go ask a Nazi if Jews were really killed in the gas chambers--> you will get the same minimizing responses."Sure, a few Jews got killed...but the chambers were just for disposal of people who died in work camps--criminals, gypsies, and others who didn't fit in were the main targets": Etc.
I quoted the article YOU cited, which contains passages in direct contradiction to your claims. I then asked if I was missing something. This would have been a reasonable person's opening to point out where I was "quote mining" or using "diversions." You did neither, entirely ignoring the contents of my post, wholesale. If you wish to explain how the article that YOU cited supports YOUR position despite the passages I cited, feel free to to so.
kmarissa: see post directly above yours for your answer.You didn't read the whole piece, so *Follow links, refute from there*. I gotta get back to the quote mine.
Um. So you're not just claiming that any persecution of people who are Christian must be motivated by hatred of Christianity; you're claiming that any persecution of people who live in a country largely populated by Christians must be motivated by hatred of Christianity? Despite your own sources saying that the purges were conducted for many other reasons? Okay then.
ungtss, do you have a source? It's not really crucial to your original point; I'm just curious.
and
Yagoda,
I did read the entire article you cited. To the very minimal extent that the article dealt with the subject matter that you cited it for, it refuted you.
When you say "associated posts" and "links", are you saying that you actually meant to cite different articles that are linked to the page containing the cited article, rather than the article itself? If so, that's your mistake. If you pasted in the incorrect link, feel free to apologize and correct yourself (by pasting the correct link) at any time.
P.S. Accusing someone of quote-mining is a pretty serious accusation to a person that values honest research. You have entirely failed to show that I misrepresented the meaning or intent of the author in any of the passages I quoted.
kmarissa: *sigh* ok, you win. "are you saying that you actually meant to cite different articles that are linked to the page containing the cited article, rather than the article itself. Nope, I never said that.
So you get the big prize today: I hereby award you the *Out of This World-AND_Out of Context Fruityloopy Lefty Award* for "semitic pandering" and failing to read my original comment, which did not posit that the article was my complete *support* for anything other than an *interesting*perspective.
YOU WIN, **!!KMARISSA:--->>WINNER<<----!!**
I said: " one authors analysis (with links) of that argument", and referenced other historical factoids, mentioning that you will have to do tyhe reading yourself, cuz who gotz da time fer contrarians?.
Now get your nose out of that beaker of bourbon or whatever it is you are researching and go troll another topic.!!YOU WON!!
As far as I know, that convention would abolish the death penalty for minors, and the Busheviki don't want that... that would be "soft on crime" or something, shock horror...
That, together with the failure to join the ICC*, was when the Europeans started to realize just how wacko -- or at least incompetent -- the Busheviki are.
* Message that apparently came across to Americans: See, I don't want foreign powers to have the right to put our soldiers to court on trumped-up charges based on antiamericanism. Message that came across to the rest of the world: Yes, people, yes. You really can trust your eyes and ears. We really do want the right to commit war crimes with impunity. *blblblblbl* *nyah*
It has of course ratified plenty.
Which ones haven't? Russia, Belarus? It's a prerequisite for joining the EU, and even the extreme right parties have long stopped calling for its reintroduction each time a particularly heinous crime hits the media.
Oops, two different referents of "it" in the last sentence. Having abolished the death penalty is of course the prerequisite.
Each Swiss canton, BTW, has apparently abolished the death penalty on its own. I once saw the constitution of the Republic (!) of Geneva.
Nope. It's because you can't worship God and Mammon Stalin at the same time. And even if you could, Stalin's paranoia would still descend upon you, as it did on every single Crimean Tatar, every single Chechen, and so on.
Thanks for the information.
(Funny how I correctly guessed Belarus simply from the fact that it's a dictature.)