The connection between Catholic priests and Muhammadan pedo gangs?

[ReptilianPeon]

There has been more news about Muhammadan pedophiles recently. This problem is widespread in England. It's so widespread that some selfish people might argue that adults having sexual relationships with children has once again become 'socially acceptable', as it was in Muhammad's time, and therefore people can start marrying children again (as Muhammad did). Clearly, Muhammad was influenced by moral relativism if the justification for his marriage to Aisha is "everyone else was doing it".

So it got me thinking. Catholic priests are not supposed to have sexual relations and Muhammadan men are supposed segregated from women. Are both of these groups, Catholic priests and Muhammadan men, sexually repressed? They are both denied the opposite gender and, although the justification may be different, the outcomes seem to be the same: They only way they feel that they can satisfy themselves is by taking advantage of minors.

Only certain Muhammadan groups employ strict gender segregation. And these Muhammadans are people that also claim that in certain circumstances (such as when a woman is not 'sufficiently covered up') rape is acceptable. Fortunately, Muhammadans are nowhere near Abdul Wahhab's Fascist (Salafi) views and it seems almost contradictory that in some Mosques women do pray alongside men (such as the one Yasmin Alibhai-Brown apparently attends[1]). It's reassuring to know that not all Mosques promote Fascism.

So anyway, we find Catholic priests and (presumably) Wahhabi men acting in similar ways. And I think it is because of the their shared sexual repression. Many Muhammadans are not allowed even to talk to the opposite gender (e.g. Saudi Arabia) until they are married and I think this both an unhealthy and unsustainable (thanks WWW) practice.


[1] Source YouTube video: UK Muslim society wants forced sex segregation in UK universities (10Dec13), 8:08 into the video.

[dyresand]

It's not socially acceptable it should never be socially acceptable. Were in the modern age were not that ignorant.
There is laws against that type of stuff in the first world countries and a few third world countries.

[ReptilianPeon]

What is boils down to is people don't want to accept that Muhammad was immoral. And (most) Muhammadans agree pedophilia is wrong. So they come up with all sorts of crazy arguments to try and excuse Muhammad.

[Dystopia]

The issue with Catholic priests is something deserving of scientific studies (seriously).

As for Muslims, some of them probably believe child marriage is ok because Aisha was 7 when she married Mohammed, so that explains it.

[Pyrrho]

... Are both of these groups, Catholic priests and Muhammadan men, sexually repressed? ... And I think it is because of the their shared sexual repression. ...

I think you are basically right about that.  Sexual repression causes all sorts of problems, because sexual desire tends to be a very strong drive in people.  When people are sexually repressed, they tend to express their sexuality in other ways than they would otherwise.

I remember hearing a woman talk about her experiences going to a Catholic school as a little girl.  One of the priests would bounce quarters off of his erect penis, and if the little girls caught the quarters, they could keep them.  (This was back when you could actually buy something for a quarter.  And it is far from the worst thing a Catholic priest has ever done, though obviously he ought not have done that.)  Now, that is probably not the sort of behavior that someone would naturally do, nor is it anything I would ever have dreamed of doing.  But then, I am not a sexually repressed Catholic priest.

Basically, with sexual repression, one tends to get all sorts of strange behaviors.  One should expect to find (if one can delve into things done in private) all sorts of strange things among people who are sexually repressed.  This is one of the reasons sexual repression is a bad thing.

[Minimalist]

Aye.




Of course, neither group seems to do much in the way of "abstaining."

[Wyrd of Gawd]

What is boils down to is people don't want to accept that Muhammad was immoral. And (most) Muhammadans agree pedophilia is wrong. So they come up with all sorts of crazy arguments to try and excuse Muhammad.

Just remember that American slave owners didn't observe any lower age limit and that the age of consent was seven (7) in Delaware as recently as 1895.  So there was no real difference between what Mohammed did in 620 and what the average American male did as recently as 120 years ago.  Maybe George Washington was a pedophile since he had a lot of slaves and we know what Thomas Jefferson did.

[ReptilianPeon]

A difference I can think of between slave owners and Muhammad is that some may not have seen their (ethnically African in origin) slaves as human. I suspect that was part of their justification for treating them as they did. True, the Quran says the Jews were turned into non-human animals by Allah, but I don't think he ever justified his actions by saying anybody was not human (Muhammad visited Ethiopia if I remember rightly and go on alright with the locals). As far as I'm aware, the age of sexual maturity has always been around seventeen and it's the fact that God made childbirth so dangerous that brought down average life expectancy.

[Pyrrho]

A difference I can think of between slave owners and Muhammad is that some may not have seen their (ethnically African in origin) slaves as human. I suspect that was part of their justification for treating them as they did. True, the Quran says the Jews were turned into non-human animals by Allah, but I don't think he ever justified his actions by saying anybody was not human (Muhammad visited Ethiopia if I remember rightly and go on alright with the locals). As far as I'm aware, the age of sexual maturity has always been around seventeen and it's the fact that God made childbirth so dangerous that brought down average life expectancy.

Things get quite complicated.  Thomas Jefferson tried to get slavery outlawed as part of the beginning of the United Stated (though he failed to convince enough others for that to happen), yet he himself owned slaves.  He did not free them, ever.

I think this can be explained (please note, an explanation is not the same as  a justification), but this is not the right thread for this topic.

---

What is boils down to is people don't want to accept that Muhammad was immoral. And (most) Muhammadans agree pedophilia is wrong. So they come up with all sorts of crazy arguments to try and excuse Muhammad.

Just remember that American slave owners didn't observe any lower age limit and that the age of consent was seven (7) in Delaware as recently as 1895.  So there was no real difference between what Mohammed did in 620 and what the average American male did as recently as 120 years ago.  Maybe George Washington was a pedophile since he had a lot of slaves and we know what Thomas Jefferson did.

No.  That something was legal does not mean that the average person did it.

However, you are right about the broader point, that Muhammad's actions in this regard were not exclusive to him, or to Muslim culture, nor was it confined to his era.  In the history of the world, his actions on this matter are not rare.

Attitudes do change over time, and they vary from place to place.  Whether they should or not is another matter, best left to another thread.

This thread is, I think, supposed to be about the relationship between sexual repression and pedophilia.

[dyresand]

muhammed is a pos like god of the abrahamic religions islam is not the religion of peace never was never will be.