by bebu 21 Replies latest jw friends
I don't think the women had much say in the writing of those laws.
If a father (or paternal grandfather) marries off his daughter (or granddaughter) in her absence without knowing for a certainty that she is alive, the marriage becomes null and void as soon as it is established that she was dead at the time of the marriage.
I have known that certain practices were common in many Islamic countries. But I did not realize that these same practices were sanctioned!
For example, I had heard of "temporary wives" before, and thought it was probably no longer practiced. But in fact, I've since learned that this practice of taking a temporary wife is the Islamic way of legalizing prostitution--for which the West is so roundly denounced as enduring.
For all the posturing of being so morally superior to the West, I wish they really were when I see what is permitted!
bebu
Gotta step in here and say you guys mentioning 'fundamentalist mormons' are just talking utter cr*p. They aren't mormons. I'm not even going to bother proving you wrong but knee jerk statements like this are just silly. If you're going to rip a religion apart get your facts straight.
Qcmbr: There is a difference (in my opinion) between fundamentalist mormon and the mormons. (Like fundamentalist christian vs christian). The fact is, there ARE sects of mormons (in some midwest states) that live in their own communities by their own rules and practice peadophelia and rape of women and girls. THAT can't be denied. But I certainly will not attribute that to the Mormon faith but rather these strict fundamentalist sects of Mormonism. Does that make sense?
But I certainly will not attribute that to the Mormon faith but rather these strict fundamentalist sects of Mormonism. Does that make sense?
Makes sense to me. As I understand it, those "fundie mormans" actually think the mainline morman church (12 million plus members) is a pawn of Satan.... (yeah, right... when actually the fundies are the the ones abusing the innocent 9-year old girls .... there's a special place in h*ll for them).
Iran is just a place where someone like Oral Roberts got into power. You Americans should take a cautionary tale from that.
was worth repeating
Oral Roberts would drive me crazy, but I am sure that I would certainly prefer him to Khomeini. I can't see any comparison here between these two!!
bebu
bebu
I can see a lot of comparisons between two people claiming to be god's spokesmen and pronouncing on morality. The fact one is WORSE than the other doesn't mean they're not similar. What difference in morality is there between a Mullah pronuncing on what is okay and not, and an Archbishop knowingly doing nothing about a paedophile Priest? The Archbishop KNOWS he's doing something wrong but allows it by inaction to continue; the Mullah thinks it is okay under certain circumstances. Both allow the abuse of minors. Kohmehni is no more Isalm than morally repugnant church leaders are Christianity.
Crumpet
Your interpretation is unfortunately right. My point is Europeans were fairly recently acting in very similar ways to socially retarded Islamic clerics today, so whilst criticism is due, perspective is neccesary to avoid giving a false impression that Islam is 'about' child sexual abuse.
I think, and I am sure all will agree, that protecting children is far more important than characterisations of religons that don't help to protect the children.
jwbot
Is there a major organised religion that doesn't at the least disadvantage or at worst abuse women? Look at the RC Church; all the major issues it has to face involve women being considered unworthy, unclean, a distraction, or less important than their reproductive ability. The more, err, 'traditional' Islam appears worse than most of modern 'Christianity' simply because a lot of Islamic countries culture is in the 19th C or even early, by our standards.
The reason the age-of-consent in the West began to rise was due to concerns about the massive level of child prostitution (at least in the UK). And our great great grandfathers (or some people's great great grandfathers) were the 'clients' of such unfortunates.
As I've said before, a cell phone and Nike's does not make someone a fully-paid-up member of the 21st Century, not if they were raised with the same social values as their great great grandfathers.
Our great great grandfathers were (if you forgive the urbanised stereotype) child-prostitute users who considered women voting a silly idea, and that the laws which effectively made a woman chattel when she married quite proper and godly. Some cultures haven't changed a lot since then.
But really the evil men do is their own; you can't blame religion for that, people just EXCUSE what they do with religion. Practices viewed as disgusting by us now were acceptable to our close ancestors for all their 'Christianity', just as they are still acceptable to some socially backwards Muslims today.
Democracy is the key; there's more women than men. Maybe the women in such countries will be slightly smarter than some of their 'sisters' in the West, who still vote for male-dominated political parties that support policies that promote or institutionalise inequality.
xjw_b12
I was wondering if anyone would highlight that; it's hard to take a religon that has to state "the marriage becomes null and void as soon as it is established that she was dead at the time of the marriage" seriously, or the person who wrote it. A bit like using Oral Roberts or somesuch's writings to characterise Christianity, but 'kick a Muslim' is an easy and popular game for the whole family. 8-(
Qcmbr
By your reasoning one can sanitise any religion by claiming actions you disapprove of carried out by people who identify themselves as x religion aren't really of x religion even if they thought they were. Torquemada wasn't a Catholic? Witch-burners weren't Christian? Kiddy-fiddling priests aren't whatever religion they claim to be? Ah... if only life were that simple...
Well reading that makes me utterly sick. Sometimes I am awed at the evilness of people.
Reminds me of the time I read a Readers Digest magazine about countries in Africa where they maim 5 year old girls because women's sexual body parts are considered unclean and the women are not to physically enjoy the sex act. Basically out in the bush without any sterile instruments, they hack away at a girl's private area, cutting away the labia and sewing the hole almost shut. Many girls have died from infection alone, others suffer a lifetime of misery--abnormal menstrual cycles that can't exit the body in a normal fashion, very painful menstruation, extremely painful horrible sex and child-bearing. I almost threw up my lunch when I read the article and got tears in my eyes because I couldn't believe the cruelty.
Female genital mutilation is ghastly; again more phallocratic control and destruction of female sexuality. Less than a century ago women in the West also suffered quack medical procedures to control or 'cure' their sexuality, thus underlining the fact such things are linked to social development of a culture more than any other factor.
Such customs as practised in North Africa today are far worse for, especially in areas where they don't have decent medical services. Because of the physical differences between men and women genital or reproductive mutilation are far more serious for women.
However, in hospitals worldwide for religious (Jewish and Muslim) and cultural (Americans tend to get cut, most Europeans aren't) reasons, baby boys have their genitals mutilated for no sound medical reason as a matter of course. Just because it isn't as bad as female genital mutilation doesn't make it a good thing, but of course as some groups think of it as 'normal', such comparisons are rarely accepted without argument.
