id give my opinion without reading the all subject i usually dot read quick and all the avid reading of it but my opinion in guns its that they are not to be pormoted that much in order for nervouse people not to use it and even licenced can become terrorists soo the fat of inabichion of gun promoting i do agre with democrats more than republicans but the rules in europe are more stable tha usa for gun using and thers no much promoting or need to do it in europe that point i do wish amerca goes more acording to europe a active less nervouse community that dont use guns to threat or hurt others lifes the prob do politics in order to lower or hihger the level of agression to wrong ideas and consequent errors.
I do get the impression that there's quite a few really smart people around here relying on google translate or similar products. |
|
|
|
By all means bring evidence to refute, fully or partially, the premise of the first post. However, please look at the dead and wounded count for last month alone at front page www.thereligionofpeace.com. Over 3200 dead LAST MONTH ALONE??? So if you show historical evidence of events that led to deaths of thousands of muslims, what is one to think? That Islam is outdoing such events on pretty much a weekly basis? 2015.06.07 (Quetta, Pakistan) - Five people are shot to death in Sunni raids on two tea shops belonging to the Hazara religious minority. 2015.06.07 (Maiduguri, Nigeria) - Boko Haram bombers turn an outdoor market into a mass of blood and body parts. 2015.06.06 (Balad Ruz, Iraq) - A suicide car bomber lays out fifteen patrons at a restaurant district. 2015.06.06 (Wajir, Somalia) - An Islamist opens fire on a group of people, killing three - including a woman. 2015.06.06 (Maluso, Philippines) - A man is captured and beheaded by Abu Sayyaf. 2015.06.04 (Fallujah, Iraq) - Two more gay men are thrown from a rooftop by the Islamic State.Evidence? I've just gave you events (that are factual) in which Muslims were killed out of pure Islamophobia what do you want more? So what's your point here? Muslims do kill other muslims? and I don't think I ever stated the opposite but You are claiming Homophobia has never killed anyone, and you were proven wrong, now you are derailing to something else. Of course one does not excuse the other, but stick to the whole point of your thread, there are many thread discussing these events and how some muslims groups are murderers. If that's so, then the nature and style of "Islamophobia" is far different than the way the term is used accusatorily in 2015 by Muslims, against those who dislike their ideas or visa versa. For example, the way Zakir accuses me of "Islamophobia," although I do understand it's just because he does not find my ideas in line with his teachings and would like to intimidate others into silence. You are claiming Homophobia has never killed anyone, and you were proven wrong, now you are derailing to something else.Ah, I don't recall ever having such a claim. In fact if you look at the bolded above, I have cited cases of homophobia by Islamists killing men. |
|
|
|
.... Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been 'exported,' as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.
---------------------------------------------------------
0bama's internet...
Well, that's a dangerous road to go down. It is correct to view it strictly as a limitation on free speech. |
|
|
|
We're sort of saying the same thing, but I'm trying to give some allowance for different cultural and different times. Understood but, given what is asserted about the omnipotent, omniscience of their god, 'cultural values' would not have been a factor in 'His' 'communications' with their prophet on the subject of raping a small child. So my assertion still stands, either they claim that their god approved of child-rape then but does not now, or they are claiming their god approved of child-rape then and still does now. Would a "God" a millennia ago have advised a person he was communicating with not to "rape Aisha?" Would a "God" today advise a person he was communicating with not to rape a child? In asking this question we do not establish anything about their 'god' ourselves as atheists, but given that theists claim to have knowledge of WhatGodWants(tm), the question can be directed at them to answer because our questions do not concerns the gods we do not believe in but the dysfunctional delusions they do. Understanding what values they ascribe to their world-view by way of having them explain what their god values and does not is critically important to better understand just how toxic their psychology and their religions are. Along this line of inquiry, I do have a question. Assume that because of my many good deeds, and in spite of my claiming to be an atheist, Allah allows me, although barely, to enter the Gates of Heaven. Do I get all the bacon I want in Allah's Heaven? Although it sounds like a joke, I suspect something like this is a serious theological question among those who take such things seriously. Muslim good deeds, according to parts of the Quran, include executing those who don't accept Islam as their religion.  Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius! ...attributed to a Christian... papal nuncio Arnaud Amalric, a leader in the Catholic crusade against the Cathars |
|
|
|
I don't know how any sane person could believe such a thing, but Islamophobia had killed before and it is killing right now hundreds if not thousands ( Actual genocides that just happened or are happening right now : Central Africa, Southern Asia countries such as Burma Cobodia, and even in europe Bosnia.....)
OK.. let me take it one by one. Central African Republic: First, the Muslim Séléka massacred thousands of Christians, and in retaliation, the Anti-balaka fighters drove Muslims out of CAR. Myanmar: The Muslim Rohingya raped and murdered two Buddhist women in 2012. In retaliation, there were widespread anti-Rohingya riots in the Rakhine state. Cambodia: Muslims face no issues here right now Bosnia: There was a civil war, in which the mostly Muslim Bosniaks were fighting the mostly Christian Serbs. Both sides committed massacres. I don't think that any of these incidents can be taken as examples for Islamophobia. How funny your partial take on the events : Central Africa, the Seleka group you are talking about was officially disbanded before the Anti Balaka muslim cleansing begin So no you are totally wrong, not only that but Muslims are the minority hence they are in the receiving end . Myanmar : Even if we assume the excuse you are making here is true which is NOT but for sake of or argumentation let's assume so :So a Muslim commited a crime, so instead of taken him to prison, lets kill all the Muslims because that make sense right? Your logic is one again flawless. Once again this is not the reason why the events started that was just one of many excuses that some monks advertised to get the mass to follow them and to massacre muslims. Cambodia : I clearly said "in recent right or happening right now" the 70s and 80s are not too far off. Bosnia : there were probably death on both fighting camps, and I'm not talking about, you obviously know and trying to avoid the fact that there was Ethnic cleansing by Serbs Orthodox towards muslims. Srebrenica events . When you kill thousands of people because they follow a religion when the only reason to massacre thousands of people ( each of these events lead to the death of thousands of muslims ) just because they are muslim is no INCIDENT By all means bring evidence to refute, fully or partially, the premise of the first post. However, please look at the dead and wounded count for last month alone at front page www.thereligionofpeace.com. Over 3200 dead LAST MONTH ALONE??? So if you show historical evidence of events that led to deaths of thousands of muslims, what is one to think? That Islam is outdoing such events on pretty much a weekly basis? 2015.06.07 (Quetta, Pakistan) - Five people are shot to death in Sunni raids on two tea shops belonging to the Hazara religious minority. 2015.06.07 (Maiduguri, Nigeria) - Boko Haram bombers turn an outdoor market into a mass of blood and body parts. 2015.06.06 (Balad Ruz, Iraq) - A suicide car bomber lays out fifteen patrons at a restaurant district. 2015.06.06 (Wajir, Somalia) - An Islamist opens fire on a group of people, killing three - including a woman. 2015.06.06 (Maluso, Philippines) - A man is captured and beheaded by Abu Sayyaf. 2015.06.04 (Fallujah, Iraq) - Two more gay men are thrown from a rooftop by the Islamic State. |
|
|
|
We're sort of saying the same thing, but I'm trying to give some allowance for different cultural and different times. Understood but, given what is asserted about the omnipotent, omniscience of their god, 'cultural values' would not have been a factor in 'His' 'communications' with their prophet on the subject of raping a small child. So my assertion still stands, either they claim that their god approved of child-rape then but does not now, or they are claiming their god approved of child-rape then and still does now. Would a "God" a millennia ago have advised a person he was communicating with not to "rape Aisha?" Would a "God" today advise a person he was communicating with not to rape a child? In asking this question we do not establish anything about their 'god' ourselves as atheists, but given that theists claim to have knowledge of WhatGodWants(tm), the question can be directed at them to answer because our questions do not concerns the gods we do not believe in but the dysfunctional delusions they do. Understanding what values they ascribe to their world-view by way of having them explain what their god values and does not is critically important to better understand just how toxic their psychology and their religions are. Along this line of inquiry, I do have a question. Assume that because of my many good deeds, and in spite of my claiming to be an atheist, Allah allows me, although barely, to enter the Gates of Heaven. Do I get all the bacon I want in Allah's Heaven? Although it sounds like a joke, I suspect something like this is a serious theological question among those who take such things seriously. |
|
|
|
Regardless of consent, sex and pregnancy at age 9-12 is something only a fool would advocate.
I think it quite likely that a millennia ago, wise elders of the tribe would have known things of this sort.
Muslims citing, "that's how things were back then", is not only tacit approval of their prophet being a child rapist, it also puts them into the awkward position of knowing that it is *not* appropriate and it is not 'right' for an adult to rape a child and that it both risks children's lives physically as well as causes them numerous neuropsychiatric disorders in adulthood, having to consider the fact that if their prophet was genuinely talking to their god and their god was genuinely communicating regularly with their prophet, wouldn't god have known the harm that child rape does and have advised him not to rape Aisha? So citing "that's how things were" is to say that either their prophet wasn't actually communicating with god and he was simply making sure he got what he wanted by lying to his deluded followers, or god also approved of child rape back then but doesn't now. Either that or they have to claim that their god did and still does approve of child rape. We're sort of saying the same thing, but I'm trying to give some allowance for different cultural and different times. As an aside, the phrase "Child Bride" exists as a term, because historically there were enough cases of it to cause it to be termed distinctly. We can apply today's knowledge to man's actions of long ago, and thus be critical of those actions. Would a "God" a millennia ago have advised a person he was communicating with not to "rape Aisha?" It is not possible for me to answer a question of this sort, since as an atheist I find the premises in error, and therefore the conclusions would be without value. For what it's worth, here is the Wikipedia entry on Aisha. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha |
|
|
|
....
Because the notion that consent comes from cognitive ability and not puberty, there's no way Mohammad or any other Muslim looked at her intelligence or maturity and made the educated conclusion that she was cognitively developed enough to consent. They looked at her and said 'Well, she has shown some signs of beginning puberty. She's legal now.' All your arguments about her intelligence are after-the fact arguments that have been developed recently and in hindsight to counter criticism that your great prophet diddled a child. And if any thing else was the case, you would not be trying to justify his actions with the puberty defense anymore, because it's immoral to make that defense.
Today we know there are far more miscarriages, and various forms of medical problems for the girl and for the baby, if pregnancy is taken to term for 9-12 year old girls. What this means is that Zakir is simply ignorant when she propagates the party line that "she was mature." Regardless of consent, sex and pregnancy at age 9-12 is something only a fool would advocate. I think it quite likely that a millennia ago, wise elders of the tribe would have known things of this sort. |
|
|
|
...
Yes, I agree with you. We have to judge actions based on the norms of the time. We can not say he was acting immorally in his time, but we sure can hold his apologists responsible for maintaining that his actions today would be OK.
Yeah, that's the central issue. They could just say "We don't do that today because we know better." But instead there's all this double talk and lying. Basically meaning, they do do that today because the Prophet did it so it's gotta be okay, la de da de da. Ain't life sweet? |
|
|
|
Rape and sex at will is different. Also the exact age is unknown, however, it is said to be between 9 amd 12. It is also known that sex was after she reached puberty. Please don't mix rape here.
Now you're just being an apologist and you are also ignoring the commonly accepted fact in Islam that he married Aisha when she was 6 years old and had sex with her at 9. That it has to be said he waited until she was 9 years old before he 'consummated' the marriage, as though that somehow makes it any less repugnant, is still a tacit acknowledgement that he is a child rapist. An adult having sex with a child is raping them because a child is incapable of informed consent, even if a child has been conditioned to believe that it is something they want to happen it is still an adult abusing their position of trust to care for and nurture a child in order to satisfy their own selfish and grotesque sexual urges. Child rape is about power and control and no sexual act by an adult to a child can be described as anything else other than a gross abuse of the significant power the adult has over a child. Stop trying to down-play the reality that your religion celebrates a middle-aged man who had sex with a little girl who was 9 years old. Stop trying to down-play the reality that your religion celebrates a middle-aged man who had sex with a little girl who was 9 years old. There, I have written it twice so you know not to simply ignore what I am saying to you. A hand-wavy, "yeah, well, she was probably at least 11 or 12 so, you know, totallyokbecausehewastheultimateprophetright? You are missing two points - Sex is not rape if it both is willing to do. - A human is a child when he/she is under the age puberty. Once a female child is mature, she can give birth to a child. I understand you are talking in general but it is not a fact. You are missing one point here: You cannot consent to sex if you do not have the mental capacity to do so, and if you cannot consent, it is rape. It seems the only people who believe that a 12 year old (and I'm using the highest age range to give you the maximum benefit of the doubt) can consent are Muslims. It has nothing to do with physical characteristics, so puberty is irrelevant. Knowing what we know now about cognitive development, nobody today can make a credible case that a 12 year old has the mental capacity to consent to sex. You cannot defend this, the more you try the more Islam looks like a backwards religion. You're unwilling to admit that 1500 years ago, your prophet did things that are unacceptable today. You're stuck trying to justify it, and you're only point (that she reached puberty) is irrelevant. The longer Islam tries to justify child rape, the longer it will be rightly viewed as being stuck in the dark ages. I would clarify, attitudes toward children have changed over the millennia. Just one example, consider ancient Greeks and young boys and sex. But we're not going to go and defend ancient wrong ideas today. That's just plain stupid. |
|
|
|
this trouble with this is it encourages underage kids to fornicate and says dont get pregnant or aids when they do it, this is not good enough
It doesn't. And what's the alternative? Not tell them anything and let them just work it out for themselves? Ignorance will only lead to ignorance and unwanted pregnancies. Plenty of evidence to back this up already. States with abstinence only programs, instead of comprehensive sex education, have the highest rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies in the country. Comprehensive sex education does a better job of achieving the goals of abstinence only programs than those programs do. South Carolina ... is part of the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) grouping of states consistently boasting the highest rates of STDs, including chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis. The states with the highest STD rates are also those with largely abstinence-only programs. This is not a coincidence: Young people who receive only abstinence-only education tend to engage in riskier sexual health behaviors once becoming sexually active. Southern states report the highest percentage of students having had sexual intercourse prior to age 13; the highest percentage of students who have had intercourse with four or more partners; and the highest incidence of sexual activity without barriers or contraception.
http://news.yahoo.com/abstinence-only-sex-ed-driving-std-rates-203137849.htmlYou are reciting propaganda. The very idea that in an Internet+20 years era, government programming in government schools would affect teenager behavior on sex is so absurd. I mean, really. Schools are possibly capable of teaching math, physics, chemistry, English grammar, and the like. To actually believe they can teach sex is just plain stupid. The kids know this stuff. What they don't know they can find out in about 2 minutes on their phones. I mean, REALLY? You are going to have to actually defend the premise that 10 year old kids don't know that if they have unprotected sex they could have babies or get diseases. REALLY? This is 2015, not 1935. The part that's utter nonsense is the "government will help you with this" and the "government will help you with that." I couldn't help but notice the total lack of anything to substantiate your opinion in your response. That's because all the stats back me up; all the data supports the conclusion that schools that don't teach comprehensive sex education have higher incidences of STDs and unintentional pregnancies. Whine about it all you want, it's not helping anything. You didn't counter with anything other than a hypothesis that 'it's the internet age, man, information is out there and stuff.' And yet, the reality remains the reality. Sorry, but it IS the information age. Information isn't something packaged in central government agencies, then doled out by teachers paid by government. That era went away at the very latest in the 1980s. That's a long time ago - like comparing the 1930s to the 1960s. Your premise is totally unsustainable. Certainly you could argue that states with ready access to planned parenthood abortion offices had an effect on teenager behavior, or many other things. You could certainly argue that giving out free condoms had an effect. That's "free stuff." But to argue that "Teachers" pushing one line of propaganda or another has an effect is ridiculous. Note that this opinion is irrespective of whether the propaganda pushed is "abstinence" or "comprehenive" or blah blah blah. |
|
|
|
this trouble with this is it encourages underage kids to fornicate and says dont get pregnant or aids when they do it, this is not good enough
It doesn't. And what's the alternative? Not tell them anything and let them just work it out for themselves? Ignorance will only lead to ignorance and unwanted pregnancies. Plenty of evidence to back this up already. States with abstinence only programs, instead of comprehensive sex education, have the highest rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies in the country. Comprehensive sex education does a better job of achieving the goals of abstinence only programs than those programs do. South Carolina ... is part of the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) grouping of states consistently boasting the highest rates of STDs, including chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis. The states with the highest STD rates are also those with largely abstinence-only programs. This is not a coincidence: Young people who receive only abstinence-only education tend to engage in riskier sexual health behaviors once becoming sexually active. Southern states report the highest percentage of students having had sexual intercourse prior to age 13; the highest percentage of students who have had intercourse with four or more partners; and the highest incidence of sexual activity without barriers or contraception.
http://news.yahoo.com/abstinence-only-sex-ed-driving-std-rates-203137849.htmlYou are reciting propaganda. The very idea that in an Internet+20 years era, government programming in government schools would affect teenager behavior on sex is so absurd. I mean, really. Schools are possibly capable of teaching math, physics, chemistry, English grammar, and the like. To actually believe they can teach sex is just plain stupid. The kids know this stuff. What they don't know they can find out in about 2 minutes on their phones. I mean, REALLY? You are going to have to actually defend the premise that 10 year old kids don't know that if they have unprotected sex they could have babies or get diseases. REALLY? This is 2015, not 1935. The part that's utter nonsense is the "government will help you with this" and the "government will help you with that." |
|
|
|
I don't hate Islam per se .... In my book it's exactly the same as any other religion. They annoy me all equally. Believing the world was created for you speaks volumes of the ignorance and arrogance of the people who buy into those doctrines. That's what I hate .... the stupidity of it all.
This. I admire and envy people like you that can sum up so well  Except they are not all the same. Look at the following. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dKdBlKgquwThis is the singer, Sinead O'Conner, ripping up a picture of the Catholic Pope as a protest against sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in 1992. We could say it was roughly similar to cartooning Mohammed. People were outraged at her doing this. But you know what? Nobody came after her with AK47s or tried to cut her head off. So, much as I would like to agree "it's exactly the same as any other religion," well, no it isn't. It's just a "time in service" thing. Take it back a few hundred years, and you have Joan of Arc being burned at the stake for FAR less offense. Islam has a seven hundred year deficit in their body count and civility. Christianity lost it's teeth during the reformation. Go back 700 years and see what you see. Joan of Arc wasn't exactly a little angel. Moral equivalency can't be achieved by comparing yesterday's Christianity to today's Islam. Also, I don't see Buddhists going around cutting heads off. Therefore, an argument that "they are all the same" obscures the truth, rather than revealing it. Better to say Christians and Muslims not Christianity and Islam. ... "and ye shall know a thing by it's fruits".... LOL... Well that's a pretty good short comeback, I'd say. |
|
|
|
....
Rat burger...
All righty, she can have her lying rat burgers. I'll have a double bacon shredded barbecued pork burger. And Islamophobia has never killed anyone. |
|
|
|
I guess when a concept is fairly ubiquitous and not shrouded in mystery or curiosity then the abuse or misuse of it is pretty low. That said, the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) doesn't work in America because there really is no discussion just scare tactics by a police officer teaching the class.
I've always been a bit skeptical of the idea of bringing the DEA agents into classrooms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP6UvNgbqIA |
|
|
|
Please do not reference links like this which only spread misinformation. In fact, although this article is nothing but an attempt to prove that Mohammed wasn't a child molester, it is footnoted by about 2 dozen references. ONLY ONE OF THESE IS ACTUALLY LINKED. That reference is this- http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/primary-sources/24The table there actually proves that consumating a marriage at the age of 9 was exceedingly rare or commonly non existent, not common. Please do not spread propaganda and mis information. To carry this one step further, here is a story of reform during the late 19th century in England.
The investigative journalist William Thomas Stead of the Pall Mall Gazette was pivotal in exposing the problem of child prostitution in the London underworld through a publicity stunt. In 1885 he "purchased" one victim, Eliza Armstrong the 13-year-old daughter of a chimney sweep, for £5 and took her to a brothel where she was drugged. He then published a series of four exposés entitled The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon, which shocked its readers with tales of child prostitution and the abduction, procurement and sale of young English virgins to Continental "pleasure palaces". The "Maiden Tribute" was an instant hit with the public. Victorian society was thrown into an uproar about prostitution. Fearing riots on a national scale, the Home Secretary, Sir William Harcourt pleaded in vain with Stead to cease publication of the articles. A wide variety of reform groups held protest meetings and marched together to Hyde Park demanding that the age of consent be raised. The government was forced to pass the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 that raised the age of consent to 16 and clamped down on prostitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Reforms_in_the_19th_and_20th_centuryNotice that Stead wasn't waltzing around defending the right to sex with 9 year olds. Notice that the public wasn't defending it. The elders of the church weren't. They were all outraged. Not you and your people. You defend this "right." Your people are not holding protest meetings and marching together against these abuses. Big difference. |
|
|
|
I don't hate Islam per se .... In my book it's exactly the same as any other religion. They annoy me all equally. Believing the world was created for you speaks volumes of the ignorance and arrogance of the people who buy into those doctrines. That's what I hate .... the stupidity of it all.
This. I admire and envy people like you that can sum up so well Except they are not all the same. Look at the following. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dKdBlKgquwThis is the singer, Sinead O'Conner, ripping up a picture of the Catholic Pope as a protest against sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in 1992. We could say it was roughly similar to cartooning Mohammed. People were outraged at her doing this. But you know what? Nobody came after her with AK47s or tried to cut her head off. So, much as I would like to agree "it's exactly the same as any other religion," well, no it isn't. It's just a "time in service" thing. Take it back a few hundred years, and you have Joan of Arc being burned at the stake for FAR less offense. Islam has a seven hundred year deficit in their body count and civility. Christianity lost it's teeth during the reformation. Go back 700 years and see what you see. Joan of Arc wasn't exactly a little angel. Moral equivalency can't be achieved by comparing yesterday's Christianity to today's Islam. Also, I don't see Buddhists going around cutting heads off. Therefore, an argument that "they are all the same" obscures the truth, rather than revealing it. |
|
|
|
I am here to just say one thing? Why do YOU hate people? and you should really give a valid reason not a shitty one that says 'Because Jews, Because Christians, Because Atheists'
and Yes, I am a people's person for those who ask, just tell me, come out of your shell and say why you HATE people like myself, and I could be here to clarify things to you, or not...
Also here is something that most muslims mistake about people's person like me is that "Christianity or Buddhism hate other religions" for this I say, Christianity or Buddhism does not hate ANY religion, but they suggest to 'invite' them to Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism, as slowly, and peacefully, even if they refuse, you can try and try, until it's their choice, you stop. and for all the wars that happened, it's because this other religion decided to come into war on Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism.
If you need anything clarified, I may not be here to answer you, don't be scared, I won't be offended by anyone, also haters, you can reply, I won't care Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink  In other news -> Islam never teaches to kill or harm anyone unless been attack, destroy or vanish. Killing is not such easy task as you described, Centuries ago, Whoever accepts Islam are from the poor and needy people, they do not have such capabilities to fight against rich people and the Kings. A true Muslims always get the divine power from Allah the Almighty when he or she really submissive to the commands of Allah what Allah has prescribed in his holy book Quran. When any human fulfill the commands of Allah, those humanity will get the divine help from the Allah as means of wealth, power and status. Pakistani police Wednesday were looking for four men believed to have killed a couple and their four children as retribution for a perceived “honor crime.” Police officer Mohammed Aslam said the killings happened Tuesday in the town of Athara Hazari in central Pakistan. Aslam said the men are believed to have hacked the family to death with axes and knives. One daughter, identified by police as Aisha, survived and relayed what happened to authorities. She and the other bodies were found after a man delivering milk to the house noticed that no one was coming to the door, Aslam said. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/pakistani-honor-killing_n_6300908.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000017https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888757.msg9799830#msg9799830Was it the family's fault to be a natural ax and knife magnet? Well, the killers were not shouting "Allah Akbar," so how can this be said to be related to the practice of Islam? |
|
|
|
I don't hate Islam per se .... In my book it's exactly the same as any other religion. They annoy me all equally. Believing the world was created for you speaks volumes of the ignorance and arrogance of the people who buy into those doctrines. That's what I hate .... the stupidity of it all.
This. I admire and envy people like you that can sum up so well Except they are not all the same. Look at the following. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dKdBlKgquwThis is the singer, Sinead O'Conner, ripping up a picture of the Catholic Pope as a protest against sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in 1992. We could say it was roughly similar to cartooning Mohammed. People were outraged at her doing this. But you know what? Nobody came after her with AK47s or tried to cut her head off. So, much as I would like to agree "it's exactly the same as any other religion," well, no it isn't. You are confusing the followers with the religion ... the religion does not commit violence, it's followers do. Religions are just memes/ideas ... incredibly ignorant ones .. That's where they are equals  I think this is an error on your part - although others have mentioned this. If what you say is true, then a verdict of death by a jury, and the subsequent court order for a person to hang, are not actions by the court, or the state, or the country. They are just words on dead paper. Only the people that carry out the orders are committing violence. From another point of view, you are likely wrong. Christians have told me that Christianity is not words in a book, but something that one must live - they say it resides within them. This is the way they separate their faith from human institutions such as churches, dogma, and so forth. They are very sincere about this (I am an atheist, just so you know). They separate their religion, and their personal practice of it, from the institutions. But to support the view you express requires the exact opposite, and I don't think that can be possible. |
|
|
|
Rape and sex at will is different. Also the exact age is unknown, however, it is said to be between 9 amd 12. It is also known that sex was after she reached puberty. Please don't mix rape here.
Now you're just being an apologist and you are also ignoring the commonly accepted fact in Islam that he married Aisha when she was 6 years old and had sex with her at 9. That it has to be said he waited until she was 9 years old before he 'consummated' the marriage, as though that somehow makes it any less repugnant, is still a tacit acknowledgement that he is a child rapist. An adult having sex with a child is raping them because a child is incapable of informed consent, even if a child has been conditioned to believe that it is something they want to happen it is still an adult abusing their position of trust to care for and nurture a child in order to satisfy their own selfish and grotesque sexual urges. Child rape is about power and control and no sexual act by an adult to a child can be described as anything else other than a gross abuse of the significant power the adult has over a child. Stop trying to down-play the reality that your religion celebrates a middle-aged man who had sex with a little girl who was 9 years old. Stop trying to down-play the reality that your religion celebrates a middle-aged man who had sex with a little girl who was 9 years old. There, I have written it twice so you know not to simply ignore what I am saying to you. A hand-wavy, "yeah, well, she was probably at least 11 or 12 so, you know, totallyokbecausehewastheultimateprophetright? You are missing two points - Sex is not rape if it both is willing to do. - A human is a child when he/she is under the age puberty. Once a female child is mature, she can give birth to a child. I understand you are talking in general but it is not a fact. 9 years old... The age of willing to do...
? Best understood in Arabic? I wonder... http://www.jammiewf.com/2015/cairs-orlando-regional-coordinator-busted-trying-to-have-sex-with-12-year-old/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
