Pakstan: Ban On Child Marriage Blocked By Islamic Clerics

In Pakistan, a bill that would prohibit underage marriages has been withdrawn after Muslim clerics declared the ban to be “un-Islamic” and “blasphemous.”

The Express Tribune reports the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony rejected the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Bill 2014 after the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) dubbed it “anti-Islamic” and “blasphemous.”

The proposed legislation had recommended harsher punishments for those entering conjugal contracts with minors.

Technically, Pakistan’s Child Marriage Restraint Act (CMRA) of 1929 sets the legal age for marriage at 16 for women and 18 for men. However, this law is often unenforced and punishment for breaking the law is negligible because Pakistani religious scholars believe it is not in accordance with Islamic teachings.

The proposed legislation sought to remedy this problem by calling for “rigorous” punishment of up to two years in prison for those who organise child marriages, still common in many parts of Pakistan.

In other words, up to two years in prison for what is in essence the facilitation of child rape is considered “rigorous” punishment, and rejected by religious scholars as being “un-Islamic.”

In recent years reformists have been working to prevent and prohibit the abhorrent and barbaric practice of child marriage sanctioned by so many Islamic scholars. However, attempts to prohibit child marriage has met strong and sustained resistance by many Muslim scholars.

For example, in 2011, Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for marriage and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.”

Most Muslim scholars in support of child marriage note that nowhere does Sharia (or Islamic law) set an age limit for marrying girls.

However, perhaps most significant, and the biggest challenge to those attempting to reform Islam, and put an end to child marriage sanctioned by so many Islamic scholars, is the fact that Muhammad, Islam’s role model, married Aisha when she was only six or seven, and “consummated” the marriage when she was nine.

For many Muslims, to condemn child marriage is to condemn Muhammad. And for many Muslims, this is simply too much to ask.

As always, it is the children who suffer.


- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/01/pakistan-ban-on-child-marriage-blocked-by-islamic-clerics/#sthash.4bZaGfNQ.dpuf

Same thing happened here in San Francisco, with a proposed ban on circumcision. Nothing is more barbaric than taking a 3-day old child and cutting off part of his body because you imagine some old man in the sky told you to.

But when you start messing with anything with religious significance, you're playing with fire.

Unbelievable, only the rergressives could even poorly attempt to deflect away from child sex abuse to young girls which is endorse by religious leaders in Muslim countries, denying young girls their basic human rights. By attempting to compare circumcism something that is not even comparable.

Move along these girls in Pakistan are lf lesser importance than circumcission in San Fransico according to the regressive left

Wow

You like chopping up the bodies of 3-day old children? Fits. It's it keeping with your desire to go into the Middle East and kill babies.

You wanna start a thread on circumcision, then jog on and and start one

This is about chilfd sex abuse to young girls being forced into marriage and no I do not think circumcision is child abuse and neither does US or International law

Didge wrote:You wanna start a thread on circumcision, then jog on and and start one

This is about chilfd sex abuse to young girls being forced into marriage and no I do not think circumcision is child abuse and neither does US or International law

Go ahead. I would find it interesting. Here it's only an example.

No you go ahead, I am interested in talking about the topic of the thread.
So take your appeasement elsewhere

Thanks

Followers of mohammed believe that anything and everything he did is right... so 'marrying' girl children and then raping them is seen as being right!


Also...

"Islam and male circumcision. Muslims are still the largest single religious group to circumcise boys. In Islam circumcision is also known as tahara, meaning purification. Circumcision is not mentioned in the Qur'an but it is highlighted in the Sunnah (the Prophet Muhammad's recorded words and actions)."

Tommy Monk wrote:Followers of mohammed believe that anything and everything he did is right... so 'marrying' girl children and then raping them is seen as being right!

Precisely.  The Mormons have been doing this in Utah for ages...even after it was declared illegal in 1925.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-Day_Saints  The LDS continue the practice covertly right up to the present day.  They consider themselves the lost children of Israel.  They believe that the old bearded man in the sky mandates they procreate as much, and as often as possible.  When a girl reaches puberty, she is married off to a 40-year old friend of the president of the local sect.

Tommy Monk wrote:Also...

"Islam and male circumcision. Muslims are still the largest single religious group to circumcise boys. In Islam circumcision is also known as tahara, meaning purification. Circumcision is not mentioned in the Qur'an but it is highlighted in the Sunnah (the Prophet Muhammad's recorded words and actions)."

I know.  The Jewish religion also insists on circumcising young boys.  It's a heathen practice regardless of the fact that several religions practice it.  If, when a person reaches the age of majority, he wants to mutilate his own body, he may do so.  But to practice genital mutilation on a 3-day old infant, without clinical indication of an immediate medical necessity, is child abuse.  Those responsible should be arrested, tried and committed/put away.

And back to the topic of the debate

It's already banned in Pakistan. The problem is that the law is not enforced.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's already banned in Pakistan. The problem is that the law is not enforced.

Becaus pf the religious leaders Rags

I give it 20 years before it appears in the "sharia book of statue law" in this country

drip........... halal
drip............ sharia wills
drip............. calls for sharia courts
drip ...............whats next

I doubt it very much Victor, I think you will see again atheism rise in this country to be the majority view and more Muslims either are Liberal or leave the faith. Science is having a massive and huge effect on religion to the degree I reckon in the developed world it will dramatically decline

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Followers of mohammed believe that anything and everything he did is right... so 'marrying' girl children and then raping them is seen as being right!

Precisely.  The Mormons have been doing this in Utah for ages...even after it was declared illegal in 1925.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-Day_Saints  The LDS continue the practice covertly right up to the present day.  They consider themselves the lost children of Israel.  They believe that the old bearded man in the sky mandates they procreate as much, and as often as possible.  When a girl reaches puberty, she is married off to a 40-year old friend of the president of the local sect.

Tommy Monk wrote:Also...

"Islam and male circumcision. Muslims are still the largest single religious group to circumcise boys. In Islam circumcision is also known as tahara, meaning purification. Circumcision is not mentioned in the Qur'an but it is highlighted in the Sunnah (the Prophet Muhammad's recorded words and actions)."

I know.  The Jewish religion also insists on circumcising young boys.  It's a heathen practice regardless of the fact that several religions practice it.  If, when a person reaches the age of majority, he wants to mutilate his own body, he may do so.  But to practice genital mutilation on a 3-day old infant, without clinical indication of an immediate medical necessity, is child abuse.  Those responsible should be arrested, tried and committed/put away.

I don't know anything about your first point... but the law is clear, so if anything is going on that is against the law then the law needs to be enforced!


On circumcision... I agree that it is wrong and is technically a form of physical assault/GBH and child abuse!


Also I can't understand the thinking behind the so called religious reasons for it... if a baby is born as a miracle of life and a gift from God created by God, and as such will be completely formed as God intended etc... why do some humans then think they know better and think they have the right to chop a bit off!!!???

Surely if God intended for that bit not to be there then he wouldn't have put it there in the first place!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Followers of mohammed believe that anything and everything he did is right... so 'marrying' girl children and then raping them is seen as being right!

Precisely.  The Mormons have been doing this in Utah for ages...even after it was declared illegal in 1925.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-Day_Saints  The LDS continue the practice covertly right up to the present day.  They consider themselves the lost children of Israel.  They believe that the old bearded man in the sky mandates they procreate as much, and as often as possible.  When a girl reaches puberty, she is married off to a 40-year old friend of the president of the local sect.

Tommy Monk wrote:Also...

"Islam and male circumcision. Muslims are still the largest single religious group to circumcise boys. In Islam circumcision is also known as tahara, meaning purification. Circumcision is not mentioned in the Qur'an but it is highlighted in the Sunnah (the Prophet Muhammad's recorded words and actions)."

I know.  The Jewish religion also insists on circumcising young boys.  It's a heathen practice regardless of the fact that several religions practice it.  If, when a person reaches the age of majority, he wants to mutilate his own body, he may do so.  But to practice genital mutilation on a 3-day old infant, without clinical indication of an immediate medical necessity, is child abuse.  Those responsible should be arrested, tried and committed/put away.

I don't know anything about your first point... but the law is clear, so if anything is going on that is against the law then the law needs to be enforced!


On circumcision... I agree that it is wrong and is technically a form of physical assault/GBH and child abuse!


Also I can't understand the thinking behind the so called religious reasons for it... if a baby is born as a miracle of life and a gift from God created by God,  and as such will be completely formed as God intended etc... why do some humans then think they know better and think they have the right to chop a bit off!!!???

Surely if God intended for that bit not to be there then he wouldn't have put it there in the first place!!!???

Tommy, none of us gets to choose the circumstances of our birth. What if you were raised by someone who believes such awful things?

Would you deem yourself to deserve being treated harshly based on the unlucky circumstances of your birth? Or would you hope that people might cut you a break, however small, on the off chance that you might be able to change?

I cannot believe the more concerning part here is something legal, circumcision, which has little effect on children compared to where girls are forced into marriage and abused and raped. Not only that, this has the apporval of the religious authorities and people are avodiing talking about that and more concerned at circumcision.

Holy crap on a cracker

Didge wrote:I cannot believe the more concerning part here is something legal, circumcision, which has little effect on children compared to where girls are forced into marriage and abused and raped. Not only that, this has the apporval of the religious authorities and people are avodiing talking about that and more concerned at circumcision.

Holy crap on a cracker

It's all child abuse. I suggest you examine your own prejudices.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:I cannot believe the more concerning part here is something legal, circumcision, which has little effect on children compared to where girls are forced into marriage and abused and raped. Not only that, this has the apporval of the religious authorities and people are avodiing talking about that and more concerned at circumcision.

Holy crap on a cracker

It's all child abuse. I suggest you examine your own prejudices.

Show me the law that states its child abuse to circumcize a boy?

I think its ridiculous, but again for you to even compare a simple medical procedure that men actually do have to sometimes have done, to wear girls are forced into marriage and raped is why you are a regressive Ben
That you could even try to compare two things far removed and make one that is not against the law claiming child abuse to wear girls have no choice at all and are abused for years is appalling

Its the worst deflective argunment, saying you do not even want to talk about the child bride issue

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:I cannot believe the more concerning part here is something legal, circumcision, which has little effect on children compared to where girls are forced into marriage and abused and raped. Not only that, this has the apporval of the religious authorities and people are avodiing talking about that and more concerned at circumcision.

Holy crap on a cracker

It's all child abuse. I suggest you examine your own prejudices.

Show me the law that states its child abuse to circumcize a boy?

I think its ridiculous, but again for you to even compare a simple medical procedure that men actually do have to sometimes have done, to wear girls are forced into marriage and raped is why you are a regressive Ben
That you could even try to compare two things far removed and make one that is not against the law claiming child abuse to wear girls have no choice at all and are abused for years is appalling

Please try to understand, Didge -- I'm not trying to say either case is good.

I'm trying to say -- you're excusing child abuse from one culture while getting all up in arms about another. That makes you seem biased against a particular culture, as you wave away the crimes of cultures you like.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

Show me the law that states its child abuse to circumcize a boy?

I think its ridiculous, but again for you to even compare a simple medical procedure that men actually do have to sometimes have done, to wear girls are forced into marriage and raped is why you are a regressive Ben
That you could even try to compare two things far removed and make one that is not against the law claiming child abuse to wear girls have no choice at all and are abused for years is appalling

Please try to understand, Didge -- I'm not trying to say either case is good.

I'm trying to say -- you're excusing child abuse from one culture while getting all up in arms about another. That makes you seem biased against a particular culture, as you wave away the crimes of cultures you like.

Agfain I am not excusing anything, show me the law that states it is child abuse, both in the US and international law?
You are making the most absurd and pathetic defkective argument, where now you are using a poor guilt argument trying to make me bow down to childish tactics, that I should be concerned over circumcision, which is not illegal and neither should it be as it is of little effect and many studies have been carried out on this as I once thought just like you and was wrong.

So the only person doing wrong here is you deflecting from the main problem that of forcing your girls into marriage, bringing up an unrelated topic as if again to defend a barbaric religion

That I find what is really disgusting

Once again, I have to point out that I did say child marriage was wrong. You're trying to paint a truly evil picture of me, Didge, and I'd be a hell of a lot more fired up about it if I wasn't so tired.

It's OK, I know you're a passionate person like myself. I'm not mad, just a little frustrated and confused as to why you want to make me out on this site to be a bad person. I promise you, I'd throttle anybody trying to hurt a child.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Once again, I have to point out that I did say child marriage was wrong. You're trying to paint a truly evil picture of me, Didge, and I'd be a hell of a lot more fired up about it if I wasn't so tired.

It's OK, I know you're a passionate person like myself. I'm not mad, just a little frustrated and confused as to why you want to make me out on this site to be a bad person. I promise you, I'd throttle anybody trying to hurt a child.

And this thread is about child marriage not child circumcision and you are painting for yourself a bad picture, I have no need to do anything here, because going off something and making it comparable to child brides is nonsense in my book and making the worst deflections ever of wanting to talk about it as it is religious leaders endoring the abuse of children

Now you take this as personal, I am just frustrated that you as a liberal happy to defend civil rights, would make poor deflective arguments and do anything to actually avoid talking about how religious leaders banned any punishment, allowing men to continue to abuse young girls. That is problematic and what we sould be talking about and as you are a Liberal you are meant to champion injustices, of which in this case you are not doing Ben. Start standing up and speaking out at wrongs, of which this clearly is and do not be afraid to say because it is some Muslims that have endorsed this

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Once again, I have to point out that I did say child marriage was wrong. You're trying to paint a truly evil picture of me, Didge, and I'd be a hell of a lot more fired up about it if I wasn't so tired.

It's OK, I know you're a passionate person like myself. I'm not mad, just a little frustrated and confused as to why you want to make me out on this site to be a bad person. I promise you, I'd throttle anybody trying to hurt a child.

And this thread is about child marriage not child circumcision and you are painting for yourself a bad picture, I have no need to do anything here, because going off something and making it comparable to child brides is nonsense in my book and making the worst deflections ever of wanting to talk about it as it is religious leaders endoring the abuse of children

Now you take this as personal, I am just frustrated that you as a liberal happy to defend civil rights, would make poor deflective arguments and do anything to actually avoid talking about how religious leaders banned any punishment, allowing men to continue to abuse young girls. That is problematic and what we sould be talking about and as you are a Liberal you are meant to champion injustices, of which in this case you are not doing Ben. Start standing up and speaking out at wrongs, of which this clearly is and do not be afraid to say because it is some Muslims that have endorsed this

OK, if you have to have me write it out, OF COURSE I think it's awful that girls are being pushed into marriage due to some people's fear of what the Sky Monster might do to them. I thought you knew me ...

I'm just saying, don't single out one culture for these flaws, because they still exist in every culture. Not to the same degree in all, of course, but it's just bigoted to hold one culture out as THE PROBLEM, while not calling out the problems in other cultures.

Oh for Christ sake, where on earth do I write out other problems in the world? I do not not, but at every turn you are doing everything to divert talking about this problem Ben, that is what I take issue with. So yes I will single out culture specifically where there is a problem, as to not do so is denying the extent of the problem

Didge wrote:Oh for Christ sake, where on earth do I write out other problems in the world? I do not not, but at every turn you are doing everything to divert talking about this problem Ben, that is what I take issue with. So yes I will single out culture specifically where there is a problem, as to not do so is denying the extent of the problem

I realized you've become anti-Muslim, but you shouldn't let that blind you to all the evils in the rest of the world. They're worth fighting too.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:Oh for Christ sake, where on earth do I write out other problems in the world? I do not not, but at every turn you are doing everything to divert talking about this problem Ben, that is what I take issue with. So yes I will single out culture specifically where there is a problem, as to not do so is denying the extent of the problem

I realized you've become anti-Muslim, but you shouldn't let that blind you to all the evils in the rest of the world. They're worth fighting too.

lol I am not anti-Muslim, where again I am very supportive of Muslims trying to reform Islam, so again making up lies about me because you are losing a debate Ben is poor. I am very much against Islamism, which so should you be
So I shall await your apology as at no point have I stated to castigate all Muslims have I?
You just proved you lost the debate by that false accusation

Didge wrote:I cannot believe the more concerning part here is something legal, circumcision, which has little effect on children compared to where girls are forced into marriage and abused and raped. Not only that, this has the apporval of the religious authorities and people are avodiing talking about that and more concerned at circumcision.

Holy crap on a cracker

What a silly thing to say. Didge, you haven't yet learned of the difference between moral argument and empirical argument? Circumcision, a physical mutilation of the body, is less onerous than a relationship? Ridiculous.

So, it's about time you learned. Empirical statements can be proved; moral statements cannot. So prove that a relationship is more onerous than physical mutilation.

Tommy makes the most intelligent moral argument here: If god is perfect; and god made the human form without circumcision; circumcision is an imperfect physical form. That is a moral argument. But it requires you to posit a metaphysical premise.

Now I don't believe in god, or any other kind of metaphysics (other than empiricism), but nonetheless if you posit a metaphysical premise, such as a religion, you can make a perfectly sound moral argument. However, you have to ground it in a moral premise, like religion. To just say that the practice of circumcision is less onerous than a relationship is utterly groundless...and, moreover, it flies in the face of another moral metaphysical premise, namely humanism.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I cannot believe the more concerning part here is something legal, circumcision, which has little effect on children compared to where girls are forced into marriage and abused and raped. Not only that, this has the apporval of the religious authorities and people are avodiing talking about that and more concerned at circumcision.

Holy crap on a cracker

What a silly thing to say.  Didge, you haven't yet learned of the difference between moral argument and empirical argument?  Circumcision, a physical mutilation of the body, is less onerous than a relationship? Ridiculous.

So, it's about time you learned.  Empirical statements can be proved; moral statements cannot.  So prove that a relationship is more onerous than physical mutilation.

Tommy makes the most intelligent moral argument here: If god is perfect; and god made the human form without circumcision; circumcision is an imperfect physical form.  That is a moral argument.  But it requires you to posit a metaphysical premise.

Now I don't believe in god, or any other kind of metaphysics (other than empiricism), but nonetheless if you posit a metaphysical premise, such as a religion, you can make a perfectly sound moral argument.  However, you have to ground it in a moral premise, like religion.  To just say that the practice of circumcision is less onerous than a relationship is utterly groundless...and, moreover, it flies in the face of another moral metaphysical premise, namely humanism.

I have nothing to learn from a regressive like you who places more of an issue to a one time circumcision event which people have to have medically done, to girls being forced into marriage and raped and suffering child abuse over many years. There is no more of a clearer understanding how broken your moral compass really is. Again it is not illegal and not likely to be made illegal based on much rsearch that has been carried out showing thw actual benefits of circumcision itself.,.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/08/27/159955340/pediatricians-decide-boys-are-better-off-circumcised-than-not


So based on the fact yes I agree a person should be able to decide for themselves and that a parent should not enforce this view, actual circumcision is beneficial and not an issue itself. The only issue is whether then parents have a right to decide to perform this procedure within the law. What is clear is it is not viewed as child abuse.

So spare me any babble what you think I know because again the very fact you have not even made any comments on the fact girls are going to continue to suffer in Pakistan is barbric to say the least

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

It's all child abuse. I suggest you examine your own prejudices.

Show me the law that states its child abuse to circumcize a boy?

I think its ridiculous, but again for you to even compare a simple medical procedure that men actually do have to sometimes have done, to wear girls are forced into marriage and raped is why you are a regressive Ben
That you could even try to compare two things far removed and make one that is not against the law claiming child abuse to wear girls have no choice at all and are abused for years is appalling

Its the worst deflective argunment, saying you do not even want to talk about the child bride issue

Law is conventional, and man-made. It is not a moral premise. You are using it as a justification, when it has to be proven itself. Many laws are poor and unwise--laws to disenfranchise blacks or Asians, for example--and you would not use them as some moral premise. So stop using law as your yardstick.

Again, you only do so because you are casting about for a moral premise--any port in a storm--for your proposition that one condition is morally better than another moral position. You cannot find that moral premise until you admit you are involved in moral argument.

Then you have to argue the premises.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Show me the law that states its child abuse to circumcize a boy?

I think its ridiculous, but again for you to even compare a simple medical procedure that men actually do have to sometimes have done, to wear girls are forced into marriage and raped is why you are a regressive Ben
That you could even try to compare two things far removed and make one that is not against the law claiming child abuse to wear girls have no choice at all and are abused for years is appalling

Its the worst deflective argunment, saying you do not even want to talk about the child bride issue

Law is conventional, and man-made.  It is not a moral premise.  You are using it as a justification, when it has to be proven itself.  Many laws are poor and unwise--laws to disenfranchise blacks or Asians, for example--and you would not use them as some moral premise.  So stop using law as your yardstick.

Again, you only do so because you are casting about for a moral premise--any port in a storm--for your proposition that one condition is morally better than another moral position.  You cannot find that moral premise until you admit you are involved in moral argument.

Then you have to argue the premises.

Yes but rational people in secular societies reason over laws, which is why western laws are that much liberal.
Again I am not justifying anything, I have stated there is room for debate over whether a prent should have the right to impose this on a child. Also as it is a medical benefit to boys, it kind of leaves your argument completely sunk.

 However as that is far rmoved from girls being forced into marriage, who have no choice to daily live for years under child abuse, being forced into a mrriage not of their choosing, being repeatedly raped and abuse. The very fact at no point have you evern spoke about this shows why people like you have your head firmly stuck in the ground.

So This is a debate about child marriage, not circumcission, you want to debate that with others take it off this thread and stop boring me with your inane repressive drivel

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What a silly thing to say.  Didge, you haven't yet learned of the difference between moral argument and empirical argument?  Circumcision, a physical mutilation of the body, is less onerous than a relationship? Ridiculous.

So, it's about time you learned.  Empirical statements can be proved; moral statements cannot.  So prove that a relationship is more onerous than physical mutilation.

Tommy makes the most intelligent moral argument here: If god is perfect; and god made the human form without circumcision; circumcision is an imperfect physical form.  That is a moral argument.  But it requires you to posit a metaphysical premise.

Now I don't believe in god, or any other kind of metaphysics (other than empiricism), but nonetheless if you posit a metaphysical premise, such as a religion, you can make a perfectly sound moral argument.  However, you have to ground it in a moral premise, like religion.  To just say that the practice of circumcision is less onerous than a relationship is utterly groundless...and, moreover, it flies in the face of another moral metaphysical premise, namely humanism.

I have nothing to learn from a regressive like you who places more of an issue to a one time circumcision event which people have to have medically done, to girls being forced into marriage and raped and suffering child abuse over many years. There is no more of a clearer understanding how broken your moral compass really is. Again it is not illegal and not likely to be made illegal based on much rsearch that has been carried out showing thw actual benefits of circumcision itself.,.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/08/27/159955340/pediatricians-decide-boys-are-better-off-circumcised-than-not


So based on the fact yes I agree a person should be able to decide for themselves and that a parent should not enforce this view, actual circumcision is beneficial and not an issue itself. The only issue is whether then parents have a right to decide to perform this procedure within the law. What is clear is it is not viewed as child abuse.

So spare me any babble what you think I know because again the very fact you have not even made any comments on the fact girls are going to continue to suffer in Pakistan is barbric to say the least

Didge, you are like the old saw...a little thinking is worse than no thinking.  You would not have barely passed in one of my classes...you certainly would not have advanced to the doctorate level.

You are a detail grabber, and fail to grasp the gravamen of any given question.  I have just educated you to the fact that you are attempting to construct a moral argument, yet rather that digesting that, you resort to a sling of adjectives and epithets that not only miss the whole argument, but have no effect on me.  You have a lot of intellectual energy, but you spend it in intellectual masturbation.

Every argument or contention has a gravamen, or nub-of-the-matter.  If you are using words like, better, worse, suffering or barbaric, your instincts should tell you that you are making a moral argument.  These are words of evaluation, not precise measurements like inches, miles, higher or lower.  When you know you are in a moral argument, you need to search your head for what you are trying to say--what is your moral premise--if it's not there, abandon the argument.

Here you find yourself in the ridiculous quicksand of saying that a relationship is worse than physical mutilation.  Maybe it is...but you sure are not helping your cause by losing yourself in these ridiculous epithets and curses.  I wouldn't choose you to represent my side of any cause.

No stop berating others when you are completely lost yourself.

What did I just say about taking your views and staryting your own thread?

Seriously are you that rude, you want to derail this thread with such an unrelated topic?

So I am really not concerned what you think of me, call me what you like and thinbk of me what you like, that is irrelevant

Why would I need to take a class in regression, you just have to be a lefty to pass that class

So last chance start debating the topic on this thread or find yourself very much sent to Coventry on this thread.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Law is conventional, and man-made.  It is not a moral premise.  You are using it as a justification, when it has to be proven itself.  Many laws are poor and unwise--laws to disenfranchise blacks or Asians, for example--and you would not use them as some moral premise.  So stop using law as your yardstick.

Again, you only do so because you are casting about for a moral premise--any port in a storm--for your proposition that one condition is morally better than another moral position.  You cannot find that moral premise until you admit you are involved in moral argument.

Then you have to argue the premises.

Yes but rational people in secular societies reason over laws, which is why western laws are that much liberal.
Again I am not justifying anything, I have stated there is room for debate over whether a prent should have the right to impose this on a child. Also as it is a medical benefit to boys, it kind of leaves your argument completely sunk.

 However as that is far rmoved from girls being forced into marriage, who have no choice to daily live for years under child abuse, being forced into a mrriage not of their choosing, being repeatedly raped and abuse. The very fact at no point have you evern spoke about this shows why people like you have your head firmly stuck in the ground.

So This is a debate about child marriage, not circumcission, you want to debate that with others take it off this thread and stop boring me with your inane repressive drivel

Ok, I get that you have been trying to avoid the argument, rather than face it head-on.  It' aint' gonna happen, pal.  I'm gonna keep coming at you, until you give us some good answers.

You are grasping at some of the entailments, but you haven't found the core of your argument.  You throw out the putative medical reasons for circumcision, without realizing that to argue that is to carry yourself further into the example.

So, how is it worse for a female to find herself in a forced relationship, than for a boy to find himself physically mutilated.  A relationship can be abandoned.  You can't sew back the missing dick...not, at least, 18-year later.  But let's leave aside the example...is a female being morally coerced when she is forced to marry someone not of her choosing?

First, note that we westerners used to do this all the time.  Was Princess Mary abused when she was forced by Henry VIII, her brother, to abandon her love, Duke of Suffolk, to marry Louis VII of France?  We once did the same thing.

Second, but we've abandoned the practice, eh?  We have embraced love as our central moral basis for pair-bonding.  Is it better?  Is it wiser?  Is the couple better off?  What's with all these divorces? What's with all this spousal violence? These are the relevant questions in a moral argument.  Instead, you opt for a kind of ethnocentrism, standing pat on the assumption that English morals are better than Muslim morals.

That kind of argument is not only opportunistic, but you miss the occasion of making a better argument: humanism demands that individual choice take precedence over royal (family) arrangements, and women should be able to choose whom they marry on their own.  There!  Try that argument!  Stop the silly nonsense of flailing about with abusive tactics and avoidance.

I think both Ben and quill, in their haste to excuse the actions of these barbarians, have lost track of the point here


its not just a child marriage, where the child is married (as a legal concept) to some guy and then handed over to him at age 18

these loons are marrying CHILDREN ....as in the whole kit and caboodle...including the marriage bed

kinda a tad more serious than an inch of foreskin methinks

one is deprecable

the other is absolutely vile....

the greater evil deserves the greater (and louder) condemnation.

Lord Foul wrote:
its not just a child marriage, where the child is married (as a legal concept) to some guy and then handed over to him at age 18

these loons are marrying CHILDREN ....as in the whole kit and caboodle...including the marriage bed

kinda a tad more serious than an inch of foreskin methinks

one is deprecable

the other is absolutely vile....

the greater evil deserves the greater (and louder) condemnation.

"Vile" and "deprecable"...OK, that's your morality.  At least you--as opposed to Didge--realize that it is a moral issue.

Now, what makes your morals better that their morals?  It's not the law; law follows morality, not the other way around.  It's a culture-clash, and imposing ethnocentrism by fiat is hardly an answer.

It's a clash between a culture that wants to make and impose life-dominating decisions on children (again, like circumcision), and a culture that wants children raised on a more humane and self-determining course.  You say we, as a culture, have a better way of raising children.  Do we?  We raise children to divorce their mates.  We raise children, leaving their children with one parent.  We raise children to tolerate and perpetuate abuse.

I make no judgment myself.  I live in a culture that, like yours, believes in humanity and self-determination.  But I don't say it's necessarily better.  I haven't experienced the other culture.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


I have nothing to learn from a regressive like you who places more of an issue to a one time circumcision event which people have to have medically done, to girls being forced into marriage and raped and suffering child abuse over many years. There is no more of a clearer understanding how broken your moral compass really is. Again it is not illegal and not likely to be made illegal based on much rsearch that has been carried out showing thw actual benefits of circumcision itself.,.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/08/27/159955340/pediatricians-decide-boys-are-better-off-circumcised-than-not


So based on the fact yes I agree a person should be able to decide for themselves and that a parent should not enforce this view, actual circumcision is beneficial and not an issue itself. The only issue is whether then parents have a right to decide to perform this procedure within the law. What is clear is it is not viewed as child abuse.

So spare me any babble what you think I know because again the very fact you have not even made any comments on the fact girls are going to continue to suffer in Pakistan is barbric to say the least

Didge, you are like the old saw...a little thinking is worse than no thinking.  You would not have barely passed in one of my classes...you certainly would not have advanced to the doctorate level.

You are a detail grabber, and fail to grasp the gravamen of any given question.  I have just educated you to the fact that you are attempting to construct a moral argument, yet rather that digesting that, you resort to a sling of adjectives and epithets that not only miss the whole argument, but have no effect on me.  You have a lot of intellectual energy, but you spend it in intellectual masturbation.

Every argument or contention has a gravamen, or nub-of-the-matter.  If you are using words like, better, worse, suffering or barbaric, your instincts should tell you that you are making a moral argument.  These are words of evaluation, not precise measurements like inches, miles, higher or lower.  When you know you are in a moral argument, you need to search your head for what you are trying to say--what is your moral premise--if it's not there, abandon the argument.

Here you find yourself in the ridiculous quicksand of saying that a relationship is worse than physical mutilation.  Maybe it is...but you sure are not helping your cause by losing yourself in these ridiculous epithets and curses.  I wouldn't choose you to represent my side of any cause.

No stop berating others when you are completely lost yourself.

Most amusing 'appraisal'!!!


Do one for me...?

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:
its not just a child marriage, where the child is married (as a legal concept) to some guy and then handed over to him at age 18

these loons are marrying CHILDREN ....as in the whole kit and caboodle...including the marriage bed

kinda a tad more serious than an inch of foreskin methinks

one is deprecable

the other is absolutely vile....

the greater evil deserves the greater (and louder) condemnation.

"Vile" and "deprecable"...OK, that's your morality.  At least you--as opposed to Didge--realize that it is a moral issue.

Now, what makes your morals better that their morals?  It's not the law; law follows morality, not the other way around.  It's a culture-clash, and imposing ethnocentrism by fiat is hardly an answer.

It's a clash between a culture that wants to make and impose life-dominating decisions on children (again, like circumcision), and a culture that wants children raised on a more humane and self-determining course.  You say we, as a culture, have a better way of raising children.  Do we?  We raise children to divorce their mates.  We raise children, leaving their children with one parent.  We raise children to tolerate and perpetuate abuse.

I make no judgment myself.  I live in a culture that, like yours, believes in humanity and self-determination.  But I don't say it's necessarily better.  I haven't experienced the other culture.

So, do i take it then that like me, you deny that there is any such thing as absolute good or absolute evil?

and that concepts like good and evil depend entirely on the society within which you are raised?

whereby one man's evil is another mans good

that in reality what a society does is choose niot between "good and evil", but in fact between order and chaos

that "lawful evil ( i.e an evil society (from one POV) )which still has laws that control its behaviour in order to pervent break down
is as valid as a lawful good society?

that a chaotic good or chaotic evil society would collapse

and that a strictly lawful neutral society is perhaps the best....though in practice unachievable since it leads to insoluble paradoxes

OR...coud it be

that culture not withstanding, you are too yellow, to afraid of "insulting" to stand by what surely must be a universal truth....that sex with a child too young to either pysically endure it or mentally understand it, is wrong in every sense of the word...

is it not the case that you have yourself just stated that you would not preseume to judge someone for this act, simply becasue they come from "over there", as opposed to "over here" In which case you are surely guilty of double standards, when you accuse someone of being wrong in judging someone for being from"over there"

(since you accept that "over there" IS different than "over here")
the mere fact that you refuse to judge on this basis give credence to those who do.

are you also saying therfore that someone from "over there" who carries out those practices "over here" should be able to claim the defence of "culture" or should they feel the wrath of law ?

If your answer is indeed that they should feel the wrath of law, then surely that legitimises what most on here are saying quite freely, that those from "over there" that come "over here"...should adopt 100% OUR cultural norms
IN ALL Particulars.......and leave theirs behind??

personally I think you are just too yellow to actually stand for anything, and have sat on the fence so long the post has grown up your ass..which has resulted in your stiff necked attitude...

Victor wrote:So, do i take it then that like me, you deny that there is any such thing as absolute good or absolute evil?

Yes.  Friedrich Nietzsche even wrote a book about it, using those words in his title, Beyond Good and Evil.  In it, he said:

Nietzsche wrote:“...without a recognition of logical fictions, without a comparison of reality with the purely IMAGINED world of the absolute and immutable, without a constant counterfeiting of the world by means of numbers, man could not live—that the renunciation of false opinions would be a renunciation of life, a negation of life.”

Whether or not it is a necessity, it is nevertheless adopted.

Victor wrote:and that concepts like good and evil depend entirely on the society within which you are raised?

Or the belief system that you accept.

Victor wrote:whereby one man's evil is another mans good

Not necessarily.  Another man’s evil might be one man’s indifference.  It’s a freer field that you depict.  There is no necessary dichotomy or symmetry.

Victor wrote:that in reality what a society does is choose niot between "good and evil", but in fact between order and chaos

Interesting theory of political phenomenon.  Is order the purpose of society?  That is the Conservative view, according to what I have posted on the dual founding of the New World.  The Conservative says politics is for law and restraint of man, who as the noble savage is prone to destruction.  This view equates society as ‘lawful order’.

But the liberal finds something more fulfilling, and even expanding, in political society.  The liberal believes that concerted action of the group is capable of much more than individual action; the ideology of the social unit is what determines its morality.   Society is not evil, but indeed is quite capable of extreme good…but it is self-validating.  Society also determines the ideology, which determines what is good.

But we digress…

Victor wrote:that "lawful evil ( i.e an evil society (from one POV) )which still has laws that control its behaviour in order to pervent break down
is as valid as a lawful good society?

I would say you are losing your train of thought.  First, what do you mean by ‘valid’?  Is ‘valid’ an alternative term for ‘good’?  I sense you are struggling to say evil is as legitimate as good.  But that just begs the question: What do you mean by legitimate?

Second, you are building a tautology in that you are employing the terms you are attempting to explain: good and evil.  You seem to be building an argument that without good, you have evil…which is circular reasoning.

Victor wrote:that a chaotic good or chaotic evil society would collapse

and that a strictly lawful neutral society is perhaps the best....though in practice unachievable since it leads to insoluble paradoxes

And it appears I was right.  But you have substituted for the term ‘good’, a sense of ‘functional’: “…chaotic evil society would collapse.”  Ergo: evil is counter-functional.

It’s an elegant argument.  What you are saying is that a society that does not believe it is good will collapse…which is to say good is necessary for society (to believe in itself) to sustain.  Ergo: good is functional.

Are you saying any more than what Nietzsche said?  Remember, he didn’t say ‘good and evil’ were not useful; he only said it was a “logical fiction”.  And anyway, how does this lend to our discussion?

Let’s build the focus together:   There is no absolute good and evil, and it is a relative world.  In a relative world, one religion is as good as the next.  To condemn one belief system on the basis of another belief system is bogus…or, to bring home the term, ethnocentric.  Thus the terms ‘vile’ and ‘deprecable’ are relative terms, and therefore ethnocentric.

Ahah...we find then that the villain is neither Muslim society, nor Western society, but a closed mind, which we find in every society...ethnocentrism!

Indeed, the world is growing smaller, and as we come together--Muslim and Christian--we bump into each other.  So let me introduce another functional idea relative to society: cooperation.  We embrace differences in others, and not reject them out-of-hand.  Those who hate Muslims are the equivalent of the jihadists, who hate Westerners.  

This insight can only be realized by one who embraces and understands community.  It cannot be understood by a strong individualist.  The individualist ideology works against any kind of understanding of one another--or, as I often say, he hates people--and so another functional idea is that we move toward a more communal, which is to day, humanist, belief system.

Victor wrote:OR...coud it be

that culture not withstanding, you are too yellow, to afraid of "insulting" to stand by what surely must be a universal truth....that sex with a child too young to either pysically endure it or mentally understand it, is wrong in every sense of the word...

“Yellow”?  Also a value-laden term, however, unique in that it is also childish.  Let’s see:

Etymology Dictionary wrote:Sense of "cowardly" is 1856, of unknown origin; the color was traditionally associated rather with jealousy and envy (17c.). Yellow-bellied "cowardly" is from 1924, probably a semi-rhyming reduplication of yellow; earlier yellow-belly was a sailor's name for a half-caste (1867) and a Texas term for Mexican soldiers (1842, based on the color of their uniforms). Yellow dog "mongrel" is attested from c. 1770; slang sense of "contemptible person" first recorded 1881.

Yep, value-laden.  

As are your values associated with children.  I think it is natural to eschew treating a child as an adult…neoteny appears to be instinctual.  But the definition of child appears to be debatable.  If we were to personify nature, clearly childhood would end somewhere between ages 10 and 13 or 14, the age of puberty.  

The Mormons tend to adopt this as moral:

BYU Harold Lee Library wrote:To beget and bear children is central to God's plan for the development of his children on earth. The powers of procreation therefore are of divine origin. An early LDS apostle, Parley P. Pratt, noted that the desires and feelings associated with procreation are not evil, but are ordained of God for sacred purposes: The fact is, God made man, male and female; he planted in their bosoms those affections which are calculated to promote their happiness and union. That by that union they might fulfill the first and great commandment…"To multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it." From this union of affection, springs all the other relationships, social joys and affections diffused through every branch of human existence. And were it not for this, earth would be a desert wild, an uncultivated wilderness [pp. 52-54].

We have adopted the age of either 16- (Europe) or 18- (US) as the age of majority.  So even in our culture there are differences.  These are conventional elections, not “universal truth”.  So, once again, you are defending a groundless premise.  Absent a god, who is to say that 18- is a better age of majority than 15- or any other age?  Where are the limits?  You would be on more defensible ground if you said all sex is evil, and left it at that.

Victor wrote:is it not the case that you have yourself just stated that you would not preseume to judge someone for this act, simply becasue they come from "over there", as opposed to "over here" In which case you are surely guilty of double standards, when you accuse someone of being wrong in judging someone for being from"over there"

To phrase something is not to normatively endorse it.  That said, there is no doubt that as a subscriber to a belief system, I make judgments.  But it is hardly a double standard to distinguish between describing something and normatively judging something.  I describe belief systems as ‘relative’; I join a certain belief system.  It’s the same as: I have blue eyes, and I recognize that others have brown eyes…there is no duplicity.

Victor wrote:(since you accept that "over there" IS different than "over here")
the mere fact that you refuse to judge on this basis give credence to those who do.

Once again, to describe something is not to normatively judge it.

Victor wrote:are you also saying therfore that someone from "over there" who carries out those practices "over here" should be able to claim the defence of "culture" or should they feel the wrath of law ?

The ‘wrath of law’ is merely the prejudices of the culture.  

Victor wrote:If your answer is indeed that they should feel the wrath of law, then surely that legitimises what most on here are saying quite freely, that those from "over there" that come "over here"...should adopt 100% OUR cultural norms
IN ALL Particulars.......and leave theirs behind??

Why in “all particulars”?  I agree that following the adopted laws is a necessity for order, but adopt 100% of our cultural norms?  Like lipstick?  Eye shadow?  

And how are foreigners to distinguish between what is a cultural norm, and simply the latest fashion?  As they discard their burkas (per your orders), should they don Levis that fasten below the buttocks as do the teen-aged boys?  Remove the laces from their shoes?  Dye their hair pink?  As you can see, you have entered quite a quagmire here.  Where are the limits?

Lord Foul wrote:personally I think you are just too yellow to actually stand for anything, and have sat on the fence so long the post has grown up your ass..which has resulted in your stiff necked attitude...

Childish...get out of the sandbox.

Tommy Monk wrote:Most amusing 'appraisal'!!!


Do one for me...?

You have good instincts.  Good logic.  You don't practice thinking enough.  You don't read enough, or you would be more familiar with the ideas you are learning over here.

You have a good thirst for thought.  You don't feed it enough.  Despite the dislike for book-learning, reading is no more than having a conversation.  If you did more, you would get used to swimming in deeper waters.

Interesting... it is true that I don't read as much as I used to although it is something I enjoy... Maybe because lately I haven't had anything challenging enough to stimulate the interest... any suggestions for my library list?

Tommy Monk wrote:Interesting... it is true that I don't read as much as I used to although it is something I enjoy... Maybe because lately I haven't had anything challenging enough to stimulate the interest... any suggestions for my library list?

Hitler: A Study in Tyranny. I think you posted something about his rise to power the other day, so you might find it interesting.

Thank you Raggs.