Muslim Child Abuse

[Judas BentHer]

And yet Julian's Paganism was more in keeping with Hellenistic Paganism, even though he was raised in the Christian tradition he stepped away and thus became an apostate. While his uncle, Constantine, professed himself a Christian after a vision of a cross in the sky just before a battle that he claimed was delivered as a sign along with a psychic message that where that symbol preceded his armies he would not suffer defeat, even Constantine remained a Pagan throughout his life. Converting unto Christianity only on his death bed. A bit of Pascal's wager, one would think.

In truth America can be considered a Polytheistic nation, in that the 1st amendment insures freedom of religion and as such a great many of our citizens hold to faiths that are not of the Abrahamic tradition. Pagans of course being one such community, and usually are also polytheist in their own rites.

That being said, Monotheism, most particularly Christian monotheism, stands predominant in America. And often enough the faithful erroneously assert that this is a Christian nation, as it was founded and remains. However, this is not the case and yet, throughout our history while the U.S. is proclaimed to be a free country every liberty achieved since it's inception has been afforded after fighting against a imposed standard that is in accord with Christian values and implied morality.

So Rhythm, with regard to the United States I would proffer the opinion that your observation regarding the reverse is incorrect. Where monotheistic moral standards did once underlie the doctrines, laws and foundations of this nation, regardless of the 1st amendment's insurance for freedom of religion, every liberty achieved since our inception as a free country has been gleaned through overcoming the obstruction set forth by the implication inherent in Christian monotheism. And as such is more in keeping with the tolerance, the liberty afforded in polytheism, hedonism,paganism and much to the consternation of the most ardent Fundy, secular atheism. Wherein it is said by many "true believers" there is a push for secularism that necessarily implies a bulldozing of Theism.

While nothing could be further from the truth, it is instead a separation of church and State, as intended in the spirit of the Constitution and the first amendment itself. Though Theists would be hard pressed to be convinced it isn't a new agenda that threatens what they before imagined was their dominance within both realms if by no other means than occupation. Both the ecclesiastical and secular.

[The Grand Nudger]

With regards to the US, I absolutely agree with you. A small but vocal minority aside, I think we're doing pretty well. That doesn't address the situation for the world as a whole though, does it. In any case, where religion stands today and claims tolerance, it is a type of tolerance of one and others existence...with the implied understanding that everyone else is wrong, and will suffer eternal punishment. Not quite the same as idols standing next to each other, is it.

[Judas BentHer]

With regards to the US, I absolutely agree with you. A small but vocal minority aside, I think we're doing pretty well. That doesn't address the situation for the world as a whole though, does it. In any case, where religion stands today and claims tolerance, it is type of tolerance of one and others existence...with the implied understanding that everyone else is wrong, and will suffer eternal punishment. Not quite the same as idols standing next to each other, is it.

Well, I for one would never presume to police the world. I live in the U.S. and as a consequence I concern myself with what affects my life and liberty here at home.

The world is on it's own. Individuals who care to live free will fight for it. As we see in headlines world over each and every day. When protesters in Egypt are tolerated for far longer protesting a corrupt President than are Americans in both Wisconsin and Tennessee protesting Unions, we have a problem as that what is considered the "beacon of freedom to the world". So conflict on all fronts in this country is what concerns me because it all stands to affect me. Be it in the religious sector or the secular.

As it stands, there has never been a global religious utopia in the history of the world. Every religion that professes itself tolerant, proves in it's exercise and especially through the authority of hierarchy be they priests or monks, or Lama's, that that is not true. It's the stuff of ego and elitism, to first profess something unseen polices, parents and guides the mortal realm and as such there are rules in place to not only accept that as truth but to live it as if one's life and imaginary soul depend upon it.

Primacy, is the stuff of religious doctrine. And that was not abandoned during the reign of Polytheistic Rome, or any armed authority that sought to bring the world to heel under a certain doctrine that may have included a religious flavor. Rome wasn't a bed of roses, with god's and goddesses standing erect as marble centuries over the faithful. Rome was bloody, oppressive, zealous and tolerant only in as much as it served to keep the peace among an eclectic mix of the conquered.

Christians, who will often cite their oppression under Roman pagan rule, weren't slaughtered simply because they were Christian. They were brought to trial and suffered capital punishment being fed to lions and suffering other sundry punishments, because their monotheist doctrine ensconced amid a polytheistic community dared insist polytheism was wrong and a god damnable offense! That pronouncement threatened the peace, and as a consequence was construed as a threat to Roman rule just as sure as if one raised an army.

Idols standing next to each other do not bleed. Nor do they act as foundation stones to secure the peace amid a polytheistic community, which would of course include those who profess monotheism in the mix, simply because their marble feet are secure their united implication that all faiths in all god's can get along.

Individuals who give worship to that what they credit as being real, while invisible, unseen and unheard, give life to the stuff of gods and goddesses. And that in and of itself implies it is to be thus inferred that the adoration is reciprocated. That one's god or goddess loves them best. And as such, that god reigning supreme in one's personal life is just as entitled to rule other lives because if a philosophy can be accepted as moral and true for an individual that believes it as fact it is egoism that imagines it's good enough for one's community so that one can be surrounded by those who see things the same way. And that's the stuff of conflict, sectarianism and "holy" wars.

Polytheism does not nor did it ever give life to peace.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you may have assumed that I was defending polytheism as a better way. I was only arguing that in that one regard, and for that one individual I cited, a religious tradition can be civil. Polytheism is not in any way better, but at least there is more than one choice. Monotheism, in contrast, is absolute. Again, I was merely arguing against the statement that religious tradition cannot be civil. I think that Julians rule does stand as a sort of interesting backdrop in that regard, to what came before and after.

[Judas BentHer]

I think you may have assumed that I was defending polytheism as a better way. I was only arguing that in that one regard, and for that one individual I cited, a religious tradition can be civil. Polytheism is not in any way better, but at least there is more than one choice. Monotheism, in contrast, is absolute. Again, I was merely arguing against the statement that religious tradition cannot be civil. I think that Julians rule does stand as a sort of interesting backdrop in that regard, to what came before and after.

I understood your point of view and my apologies if I gave the impression that I thought you were defending polytheism exclusively.

However, with regard to my former statement that religious tradition is not civil-ized, while I understand your reference to Julian it is not a fair and accurate representation of his rule to assume that during his reign as Caesar that his was a polytheistic empire that ruled as a tolerant open society that afforded more liberties than did monotheism.

Monotheism refers to one god, as we know. And yet, in the history of polytheism and Julian's version included, absolutism was not at all absent. While Rome may have absorbed the god(s) and goddess(es) of it's conquered so as to afford a veritable pantheon of supreme beings the world over, that inclusive doctrinal impression was not the lay of the land prior to nor post Julian era.
Rome, even under Julian, did revere many Deities welcomed into a veritable global pantheon amid all the lands Rome ruled. However , there were Deities of State and religious doctrine that was deemed "officially Roman" and as far as they were concerned there was elitist exclusivism. So while inclusive polytheism was tolerated as a matter of political expediency, it was not tolerated as a matter of official Roman religiosity in matters of State.

The Romans figured it was easier to tolerate the conquered people's worship and Deities because it kept the peace and made for far less conflict in the challenge of overcoming a people coupled with attempting to enslave their minds, hearts and souls to one doctrine. So as long as the conquered knew and kept their place, they were fine. They could worship as they saw fit and yet, the supremacy that was afforded the Roman pantheon was absolute. The other god's and goddesses of conquered people were tolerated however, they were not construed as bearing equal footing to those of the Roman pantheon. Which can be construed to be reflected in today's theme attending the American Senate chamber.
Where the first amendment insures freedom of all religions, on the wall of the Senate chamber is written in brass letters; in god we trust.

That is in reference to the Christian deity. And while polytheism is an inalienable right afforded all citizens in the U.S. the implication, the inference that causes conflict often enough on the subject and is what inspires many Christians to imagine this is indeed a Christian nation, is that that affirmation on the wall of power governing this country (and on our currency and elsewhere) is that the god of the Christians reigns in the halls of power.

So is it any wonder that when secularists proclaim Christian Theists imagining that is true on all fronts in this country are met with opposition in insisting on the separation of church and State that often enough their rebuffed by those in political power?
It wasn't any different when it came to the Roman Senate, wherein the American gleaned it's model.

We all want to feel comfortable living in a world that looks and feels the way we need it to in order to feel safe and free. We can claim we're tolerant of all and yet, when it comes to down to brass tacks we find that's not only not the case but it's impossible. It's what makes for conflict between atheist and Theist.

Freedom of and freedom from are and were two different things. No matter how many Deities are present because the real life players are the human ego's that give life to the belief that one way or the other, Theist or atheist, it all comes down to who's right.


*edit missing words*

[The Grand Nudger]

lol, I'm only saying that Julian gave it a go, with regards to attempting some civility towards the christians of his day. It didn't work out, especially for him, obviously. Can you give me that? That this token effort does not stand up to our very much improved concept of civility is obvious, and expected. None the less, it was an effort.

---

missing words are the bane of my existence btw.

I'm going to rephrase my argument here, not so much for you, but as is my habit, for lurkers (who outnumber us). Religious pluralism, which may not be exemplified in the case of the Roman state, affords one the opportunity to at least decide a position from within it's expanded pantheon. This is a far more civil position than the one offered by monotheism. That a person is not inferior by celestial decree or affiliation (though pagans have often made this claim as well..but not always) is superior to the monotheists position. It is in this regard, and I stress this because this is the only point that I am arguing, that one can view the modern monotheists position as a steady progression of backwards steps. There is nothing inherently un civil about religion. It is a failing of man when he leverages his faith to be uncivil to his neighbor. A civil religion could indeed be imagined. Many faiths have proposed ideas which were an improvement, from the pov of civility, over their predecessors.

I am not arguing that we as a whole have taken steps backwards, only that the faiths that remain in working order today are not necessarily the cream of the crop when it comes to civility or tolerance. I find it to be disappointing that religious traditions such as the ones we are commonly exposed to were the ultimate winners in the conflict between religious ideals, and I take offense to the common contention that these very same religious traditions somehow improved upon our view of what is right and wrong. ...that they rid the world of the scourge of what had come before.

I use the example of Julian only because he is widely considered to be the "last pagan emperor of the world". The Hellenistic tradition that he wished for the people of the roman empire stands as a stark contrast to the monotheistic tradition which claimed the final victory. On the one hand, we have a practice of inclusion. Of course this was politically expedient, and had a great many other benefits to the roman empire. On the other hand, absolute exclusion. I personally believe that the practice of inclusion would have made for a much less bloody history in and of itself, than did the practice of exclusion to which we are all heirs. Those that died due to wars over territory and resources would of course still have died, but many of those who died due to religious affiliation alone would likely have been spared.

[Rayaan]

I haven't been posting here for a week or two but it's good to see Rayaans blind justification and excuse making for Islam hasn't changed.

Yeah, my beliefs on Islam didn't change, but in the end, to each his own beliefs. Don't let that bother you please. Keep on posting.

Even given the term refers to "a light beating", just think how degrading and demoralising that is. The woman has to feel about a millimetre tall after getting a corrective slap from the master of the house. This isn't anything like a respectful marriage where the female is treasured and honoured.

It is certainly degrading to the woman. But that's the point. When you do something really bad, a disciplinary action is allowed for those things which are mentioned in the Quran, such as this. But you can also forgive her.

Speaking of "degrading and demoralizing," I have seen verses in the Bible as well which seem to fall under this description, which I know that your atheist freinds have heard of also, although I'm not going to make a positive claim because I am not an expert on the Bible and my interpretation of them could be wrong. That's why I used the word "seem" in the sentence. I'm not going to quote them, and that's not going to help me in my argument because then I'll be talking about a different book and not the Quran.

---

With regard to Rayaan's observations:

Many non-Muslims are aware that the Koran states that it contains God's Divine timeless guidance. While the Koran also commands the faithful to exercise the intellect Allah bestowed upon them, so as to interpret that guidance by learning Arabic so as to best understand the guidance amid the lay community and to also interpret and understand that instruction based on a scholarly investigation.

So when violence against Muslim women, by Islamic men, is excused by anyone claiming the Koran does not permit that to occur, it's actually a banal excuse for pardoning what is, what's occurred, what's been suffered, in the name of Islam as perpetrated by one who claims to be Muslim.

If the Koran did not permit spousal abuse, or abuse of women and children at all, as some would like us to believe, then there would be no Muslim alive who would commit abuse in the name of adhering to the tenets of their faith as guided by the word of Allah. "Honor Killing" would not exist.

But it does.
It's not a matter of freedom of religion, it's a matter of freedom from a religion who's holy book can be interpreted by it's faithful to inspire war against the whole world. It's not a matter of tolerance, which is only exercised in the face of what is otherwise intolerable, when there is not one church or synagogue erected in Saudi Arabia or Mecca and the primary definition of "Tolerance" is; a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own. When Islam bears a history of Muslims who behead their wives, beat their wives, rape their wives, brutalize their children and slaughter infidels for daring to live free of feeling the need to comply to the tenets of Islam, because that freedom and exercise of liberty is simply not tolerable to those who are Muslim and claim their deviant behavior is in keeping with the will of god and the tenets of Islam.

Religious tradition is not civil. It's not civilized. It's old world backwards tradition that seeks to enslave the intellect of the faithful and coral the evolution of the secular. Every aspect of any of the three traditions of the Abrahamic faiths can be dissected so as to reveal backwards, violent intolerant philosophy. Unfortunately, Islam is the one that get's the majority of the Press coverage that broadcasts the impression Islam, of those three Abrahamic traditions as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, is the only one that has a population of faithful who are Fundamentalist traditionalists in the worst way. And be that as it may, in an unfair media scrutiny that makes it seem as if Islam holds the exclusive on such dysfunctional behaviors amid certain of it's faithful, it is what it is. And those faithful are proud to be what they be. And no manner of excusing; that's not Islam! Changes a thing about it.

---

In short, I'll say this for now:

People who profess the Islamic faith do commit mistakes. Many have committed atrocities, but just as your attitude towards them is not (necessarily) representative of reality, neither is their attitude (necessarily) representative of Islam.

[The Grand Nudger]

Rayaan, you show me where the Qu'ran permits the wife to strike her husband. Until such time any attempt to explain away the permission granted to the husband, and not the wife, is bare misogyny. That the husband may be justified in degrading the wife because she has done "a bad thing", and that the vehicle of this degradation could be physical violence, however light or lovingly carried out, is absurd.

A slap on the face is domestic violence, regardless of the reason. Domestic violence is something which should not be permitted. That your god chooses not to subscribe to this position, and yet his defective creation (myself) can come to it, says something about your concept of god. I know you wouldn't agree, I just can't help but make the statement.

---

I think I just got my Union of Misogyny card revoked....son of a bitch.

[Rayaan]

Yeah, the Quran doesn't have a verse which specifically says that the wife can strike her husband. But it does not prohibit such a thing either.

Islam ensures equality between men and women. What it does not provide is identicality. Modern cultures enforces identicality on men and women. Men and women are not identical. They are different, have always been, and will always be different. The psychological pressure that modern society leverages on women to mimic men and become identical to them has destroyed many a women's life forcing them into situations against their very innate nature. Islam ensures that there is equality between sexes, even though the roles may be different. It ensures that in areas where women are natural leaders, men play a supporting role and it ensures that in areas where men are natural leaders, women play a supporting role.

[The Grand Nudger]

: facepalm : I don't know why I expected anything other than what you've just posted.

A short summary of Rayaans position, my interpretation of course.

Q: God, is it okay to hit my wife?
A: No, absolutely not.
Q: But what if she does something really bad.
A: In that case I suppose so.
Q: Cool, cool, is it okay if she hits me?
A: On the fence about that one.

Timeless wisdom here folks, from the infallible word of god himself.