Why would prophets/religious beliefs be off-limits to criticism?!

[leibowde84]

It is your right to say what you like, I'm not arguing against that. I'm also not arguing for special treatment for anyone.

I'm arguing that using the term child molester is not a legitimate way to carry out an honest discussion. It is an insult and it is intended as an insult. People who perceive it as an insult are not being oversensitive, they are right.

You believe Paul was dishonest, if you described him as a 'f**king lying c**t', this means the same thing but shows hostility towards him. 'Child molester' shows hostility to the target. It is not a neutral term, and is of highly dubious factual accuracy. Don't pretend otherwise. Saying Muhammed married a young girl is factually accurate and neutral. If you deliberately choose a less accurate and highly emotionally loaded term when more accurate and less hostile language exists, you do it to be provocative. No other reason.

It is your right to insult whoever you choose, don't be surprised if the response to you insulting someone that a person holds dear to their heart is a smack in the face though. If you don't believe me, go and insult a stranger's girlfriend in a way you deem to be 'factually accurate' and supported with 'valid argument'.

Why do you think there is a connection between profanity (which I would agree is insulting) and a term like "child molestation?"

 

[Augustus]

Why do you think there is a connection between profanity (which I would agree is insulting) and a term like "child molestation?"

Why do you think that the term child molester can be used a way that will not be interpreted as a flagrant insult?

 

[leibowde84]

Why do you think that the term child molester can be used a way that will not be interpreted as a flagrant insult?

Because it is merely a term describing an act that is not profane. As long as it can be substantiated, it is merely a classification, not an insult. Malicious intent is required for something to be an insult.

What term would be appropriate to describe an adult who uses a child, unable to give consent, for sexual stimulation? Are you claiming that I am using the wrong term, or are you saying that we shouoldn't be able to talk about things like this.

 

[Augustus]

Because it is merely a term describing an act that is not profane. As long as it can be substantiated, it is merely a classification, not an insult. Malicious intent is required for something to be an insult.

What term would be appropriate to describe an adult who uses a child, unable to give consent, for sexual stimulation? Are you claiming that I am using the wrong term, or are you saying that we shouoldn't be able to talk about things like this.

I have answered these questions before...

Your entire argument is anachronistic and based on applying contemporary logic to ancient times. This is a fallacy. As I explained before, marriages were often about alliances and had to be consummated before it became binding. Muhammed had sex with a girl who, by the standards of the time, had given her consent when she got married. In any case, the consent probably belonged to her father. To say Muhammed had done anything that could be considered wrong by the standards of the time is not being honest or fair.

You purposely choose a term which relates to the most despised of modern crimes. A crime which inspires absolute revulsion towards those who perpetrate it. There are none so despised in most societies as a child molester. The lowest of the low.

To call someone a child molester is to accuse them of being the scum of the earth. Beyond contempt. Hide behind insipid dictionary definitions all you like and try to pretend it is simply a factual classification that is applicable in all times and places, it is not. There is either abundant malicious intent, or childlike naivety in saying otherwise. It is a modern term that means illegal sexual abuse based on modern notions of child and consent. If you didn't know before, you do now. You may disagree, but that is only because you are wrong. Up to you whether or not you accept this fact.

 

[Etritonakin]

Geeze, buddy ... you put a massive amount of words in my mouth. I never once said that I wanted to erradicate an entire religion or religious group. I am in favor of irradicating those who are hopless ... like ISIS. They are a group of sociopaths that hide under the guise of religion. Groups like that must be stopped, but that doesn't say anything about Islam in general. I am not in favor of destroying any religion.

I did assume, but you weren't initially very clear.

I do not support what is done by ISIS -and I don't know much about them apart from a few news reports -but let's consider the matter.

I think it inevitable that various powers will eventually respond to ISIS -but I don't think targeting one group is going to change the world or its course very much.
They are an immediate issue, but all things must be considered in order to keep things from happening in the future.

It's not as if the world was going along just fine and then ISIS popped up -and if they were eradicated the world could continue to go along just fine.

Everything must be considered and the appropriate action applied in various situations -but this needs to extend to the whole world.

In any group, you have individuals with varied reasons for being part of the group -and individuals who are acting in various ways.
If the group is a threat as a whole, it is not always the best option to simply target all associated and eliminate them.
Groups are like certain plants -they have fruits, branches, roots, soil, nutrients.
However, they are unlike such because they cannot often be easily uprooted as a whole.
The method used to attempt to uproot the whole might cause it to multiply -sending seeds in all directions.
Each component must be addressed.

Also -if the desired end result is peace, then peaceful means should be employed whenever possible.
It may counter-intuitive, and definitely not easy when tensions are high -but acting in anger and rage often makes people less likely to achieve the desired end result and creates more problems.

The Fruit. Certainly, any of a certain group who are an immediate threat to innocents, etc. should be dealt with -but that's assuming there are any able and willing to deal with them.

Then you have the branches -how are the above enabled to do such, and how are the individuals who enable others discouraged or prevented from doing such?
Some may be believers -others may lack shelter, money and food -some may be under duress -some may be brainwashed -some may not necessarily understand what they are getting involved with, but are seeking an answer or alternative to other issues....
The group may be weakened by addressing other issues -humanitarian, etc., and making it less attractive. Proving their points about their targeted enemies false can also help. If they are brainwashed to see others as evil -not being evil can certainly help.
Informing them somehow that they are not being effective at reaching their goals -offering alternatives -also helpful.

Roots -how did they come to be? How are they sustained? In what climate do they flourish?
Is it effective to attempt to cut of all sustenance to all components -which may cause adaptation, greater strength and efficiency -or to remove the completely unhealthy fruit, trim some branches, graft them elsewhere, change the climate, tweak the nutrients and cause the plant to be a different plant which bears different fruit?

 

[Falvlun]

Of course not. That's my whole point. It doesn't matter what religion we are referring to, people should not be punished for speaking their mind about religious belief, dogma and/or historical figures/prophets. I would be equally disgusted with a Christian nation that did this.

Sorry not really sure why I quoted you. I was responding to THIS quote.

 

[Falvlun]

It's funny to me that people compare parts of Christianity that are not considered "ancient" to aspects of Islam that are prevalent TODAY. For example, the crusades took place over 1000 years ago. To compare them with anything happening today is pretty darn ignorant. In the same way, it is easy to see that people are disgusted when the Christianity that existed 1000 years ago or even 100 years ago is being used as an example.

I don't find it ignorant to review the past. It has many lessons for today, especially when sweeping claims are made about the inherent nature or capabilities of a particular religion or group of people.

I find claims that Islam cannot possibly become progressive highly suspect since we have seen religionsthat have suffered from the same issues overcome their own unsavory pasts. Comparing Christianity with Islam isn't to make some "Christianity's past makes it as bad as Islam" statement. It's rather to say "If Christianity can do it, then why not Islam?"

We moved on from that mindset a long time ago. Why can't these Islamic States do the same thing?

Who is we? Why should you expect all the peoples in the world to act the same as a select group of Western European countries? The history of a people will have an effect upon their present day situation. In many ways, it can be argued that the inhumanity that the white Europeans inflicted upon the rest of the world contributed directly to the abysmal state that many of these countries are in today. Additionally, many, many people live in places where extreme poverty, hunger, disease, or war are constantly around the corner. I suspect that living with these constant insecurities and fears may stilt their ability to spend time making rational, kind philosophies. They are too busy just trying to survive. And it's not like violence and inhumanity is only found in Islamic states: Check out the Lord's Resistance Army or the various genocides that periodically occur (Hutu-Tutsi or the Tamils or the freakin' Holocaust-- that only happened like 70 years ago!)

The world is not homogenized. It does not make sense to expect every group of humans to be at the same level.

 

[JoStories]

Of course. I agree. I just think that Muslims have a distorted view of what the words "personal" and "insult" means. Insults are only such if they cannot be substantiated with proper argument.

I don't agree insofar as this does definitely apply to Christians that take offense to many suited perceived insults. I cannot tell you how many people I have had the displeasure of posting with on other boards who would take offense if one had the temerity to state that there was the possibility, the mere possibility mind, that Christ was not divine or that the bible was divinely inspired. Yes, some Muslims take offense at silly slights that should offend no one but so, too, do Christians. Hope this does not offend you sir.

 

[JoStories]

Discussion would start from the point that Muhammed married a child, and seek to identify moral and ethical question related to this.

To start from the term 'child molestation' starts from the premise that he was a gravely immoral man. It is not chosen to begin honest and fair minded discussion, it is chosen to denigrate his character. At best you can say it is inadvertently offensive, but 99% of people who use the term choose so to be deliberately provocative or downright offensive.

Let's say your granddad married a 14 year old girl when he was 18, a perfectly possible situation that would not have been unusual in many places 60 years ago. If someone called your granddad a child molester, he would probably get a smack in the face.



Not if the term is to have any substantive meaning it wouldn't.

Molest: assault or abuse (a person, especially a woman or child) sexually.

Child molestation = child sexual abuse

You can try to make a case that it is an honest attempt at discussion, but it isn't. It is an insult and it is intended as an insult.

I could not more strongly disagree with you. Having studied the faith of Islam, I find that Mohammed marrying a child to be the very definition of pedophilia. Similarly, I find Lot fits that bill too. When a man marries a child below the age of 12 or so, that is child rape. A child of that age cannot possibility make understandable choices such as wanting to sleep with someone who without doubt will tear her to shreds. Defense of a pedophile is the lowest of the low, IMO.

 

[JoStories]

Why do you think that the term child molester can be used a way that will not be interpreted as a flagrant insult?

It is a term used to define the actions of a man engaging in sex with a minor. Should one take the term as an insult, that is on them. David koresh was a child molester, among other heinous things. That is simply the facts and defines his blatant and disgusting tendencies to have sex with small children.

 

[psychoslice]

No they do not.

And in this forum they are not allowed to call him a liar either.

Why is that ?.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't agree insofar as this does definitely apply to Christians that take offense to many suited perceived insults. I cannot tell you how many people I have had the displeasure of posting with on other boards who would take offense if one had the temerity to state that there was the possibility, the mere possibility mind, that Christ was not divine or that the bible was divinely inspired. Yes, some Muslims take offense at silly slights that should offend no one but so, too, do Christians. Hope this does not offend you sir.

Not at all. I agree completely. I think that members of every religion need to reach this maturity. And, I too have witnessed many Christians who take offense to mere criticisms of their faith.

 

[JoStories]

Not at all. I agree completely. I think that members of every religion need to reach this maturity. And, I too have witnessed many Christians who take offense to mere criticisms of their faith.

Agreed, of course. I wish, as you, that we could discuss matters of faith without rancor or people taking one's opposing thoughts as insults to the other's faith. Its ludricrous, IMO, to imagine that anything I could think about matters of faith could in any way insult someone else. To me, and again, this is IMO, that if something I state so insults someone that that someone's faith is very shaky to begin with. If one has true belief in a faith, nothing should be able to shake that.

 

[leibowde84]

Agreed, of course. I wish, as you, that we could discuss matters of faith without rancor or people taking one's opposing thoughts as insults to the other's faith. Its ludricrous, IMO, to imagine that anything I could think about matters of faith could in any way insult someone else. To me, and again, this is IMO, that if something I state so insults someone that that someone's faith is very shaky to begin with. If one has true belief in a faith, nothing should be able to shake that.

Truer words were never spoken.