Same with the catholic church and child abuse. If they didn’t know any better because everyone else didn’t think it was a problem at the time, then what’s the point of the whole thing? They claim an eternal and absolute morality but it constantly changes in reflection of when people change. Hmm
If they didn’t know any better because everyone else didn’t think it was a problem at the time…
I think this DOES make the Catholic Church situation different. The CC damn well did think it was a problem which is why they kept covering it up.
At least the Muslims were open about it from the beginning but you won’t find any CC literature talking about CSA and Child Marriage (at less than 10 years old) being okie-dokie.
Muslims venerate Mohammed as the perfect man / perfect muslim, examples of his way of life as catalogued in the Hadith are nearly as important as the quran itself.
So yes, things were different back then, but it’s a problem that millions of people alive today see such behaviour as something worthy of worship and emulation.
One of the many problems with that argument is that we are talking about a religion that is currently used as a guide and basis for the morality of billions of people. So when you say “well we cant really judge this guy by today’s moral standards” you’re ignoring the part where those same moral standards could be applied to people today by that religion. It is precisely because people questioned the morality of what older generations did that things could change for the better. So yeah I am going to judge the shit out of people that lived in the past because saying “no that isn’t ok” is the first step to society no longer tolerating the horrors of the past.
So yeah I am going to judge the shit out of people that lived in the past because saying “no that isn’t ok” is the first step to society no longer tolerating the horrors of the past.`
they’re already gone, you can’t judge them. There is a difference between “no that isn't ok” and “no, that wasn’t ok”.
First one isn’t judging the past, it’s practically about the present.
Tolerating the horrors of the past also seems absurd. “Intolerance to repeating the horrors of the past” maybe?
are you living your life today according to the customs of 22nd or 31st century?
Child marriage with no minimum age is currently allowed in 5 US states, including California. We should probably be raising more of a fuss about that if we think a guy doing this 1400 years ago is a problem.
Between 2000 and 2018, some 300,000 minors were legally married in the United States.[16] The vast majority of child marriages (reliable sources vary between 78% and 95%) were between a minor girl and an adult man.[16][17][18] In many cases, minors in the U.S. may be married when they are under the age of sexual consent, which varies from 16 to 18 depending on the state.[19] In some states, minors cannot legally divorce or leave their spouse, and domestic violence shelters typically do not accept minors.[20][21]
A guy doing it 1400 years ago wouldn’t be a problem now… if the pedo’s religion didn’t idolize himself and if people didn’t use it to justify their own child abuse.
Also, if you think america’s CA is bad, take a look at unicef’s data: 51.4% and 28.3% of young women in bangladesh and afganisan respectively are married off while underage.
I can’t speak about afganistan, but as a bangladeshi, I can confirm that it’s fucking disgusting listening to people I know discussing child marriage as if it’s completely normal, citing that muhammad did so too.
It’s crazy that these barbaric religions have still managed to survive to this day, and some people continue to defend them
writing about nuances, some other things to consider would be
the ratio of men to women
what marriage means. In a polygamous society where most men have many wives, would marrying an older man mean that you’re getting consumed that night or were you becoming part of another house and waiting your maturation while allying those houses together.
i can’t answer for them and i’m glad to not to live back there and then.
rules and customs that seem ridiculous today were maybe necessary there and then.
the thing is, i’m not a devotee. i’m just an atheist who sees that hate won’t convince anybody that there are no gods. Here, most of the things i read stinks of hate, awful awful hate.
philosophy literally means love of knowledge. You have to love this knowledge and share this love.
Did you read the book that got Salman Rushdie almost killed? You may like it and it sure is a more interesting read then all these. It’s fun too (and that’s why it’s dangerous)
Lmao my guy over here trying to defend child marriage and rape with “akshually, societal context of the time makes that okay”.
Will you attempt to defend slavery next?
Some things in history are fucked up and objectively bad. Just because civilizations - even major ones - throughout history did a thing does not make it subjectively or objectively defensible, let alone acceptable.
And before you even try to use “now vs future historians” as an argument: yes, I’m also pretty sure some things we do today and consider to be uncontroversial will, in the future, be considered reprehensible.
I hear this quote in these contexts, but the ideas have always been there, abolitionists have existed as long as slavery has. It was wrong then and wrong now.
So wrong now it would have been a legal marriage in at least five states (pending judicial or parental approval):
In California, for instance, the general marriage age is 18, but children may be married with parental consent and judicial approval with no minimum age limit.[45]
Oh hell yea. I say that today too. The animals and the process to create our food deserves much more respect and regulation than currently in practice.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
…
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
This isn’t wrong, but it never had any sort of effect on debt bondage.
Debt bondage, also known as debt slavery, bonded labour, or peonage, is the pledge of a person’s services as security for the repayment for a debt or other obligation. Where the terms of the repayment are not clearly or reasonably stated, the person who holds the debt has thus some control over the laborer, whose freedom depends on the undefined debt repayment.
The problem here is that the U.S. had black codes and Jim Crow laws, things created specifically to target black people. These by and large restricted black people from owning property, marry freely, enter contracts, testify in court against white people, speaking too loudly in the presence of a white woman.
Breaking these meant that the person in question would be tried and convicted, thus entering debt. A white person could then buy this debt, and the black person would have to “work off” this debt for an indeterminate amount of time.
This was in place for a very long time, and wasn’t overturned until 1941 when the office of the attorney general issued circular 3591, classifying debt peonage as slavery. They did this because the FDR administration was worried that the enemies would use the American treatment of black people against them in a propaganda war.
TIL the US used to be so racist against black people. Good thing they wisened up, and nowadays through student debts and mortgages, any bank owner (mostly white) can still have some control over laborers of all races!
deleted by creator
So what you are saying, is basing current morality and worldview on 1400 year old scriptures is not wise?
deleted by creator
I’ve never seen islam defenders respond to this. The ones that did were just closet pedophiles who wanted child marriage to be ok again.
Oh, I see! Islam defenders respond by downvoting with zero self-reflection! No wonder you lot have nothing to say! Mystery solved :)
Same with the catholic church and child abuse. If they didn’t know any better because everyone else didn’t think it was a problem at the time, then what’s the point of the whole thing? They claim an eternal and absolute morality but it constantly changes in reflection of when people change. Hmm
Multiple things can be bad at once.
I think this DOES make the Catholic Church situation different. The CC damn well did think it was a problem which is why they kept covering it up.
At least the Muslims were open about it from the beginning but you won’t find any CC literature talking about CSA and Child Marriage (at less than 10 years old) being okie-dokie.
Correct.
Muslims venerate Mohammed as the perfect man / perfect muslim, examples of his way of life as catalogued in the Hadith are nearly as important as the quran itself.
So yes, things were different back then, but it’s a problem that millions of people alive today see such behaviour as something worthy of worship and emulation.
One of the many problems with that argument is that we are talking about a religion that is currently used as a guide and basis for the morality of billions of people. So when you say “well we cant really judge this guy by today’s moral standards” you’re ignoring the part where those same moral standards could be applied to people today by that religion. It is precisely because people questioned the morality of what older generations did that things could change for the better. So yeah I am going to judge the shit out of people that lived in the past because saying “no that isn’t ok” is the first step to society no longer tolerating the horrors of the past.
Well reasoned.
they’re already gone, you can’t judge them. There is a difference between “
no that isn't ok” and “no, that wasn’t ok”.First one isn’t judging the past, it’s practically about the present.
Tolerating the horrors of the pastalso seems absurd. “Intolerance to repeating the horrors of the past” maybe?are you living your life today according to the customs of 22nd or 31st century?
There’s no nuance here. Sex with a pre-pubescent child is, by definition, pedophilia. No matter what time it takes place in.
Child marriage with no minimum age is currently allowed in 5 US states, including California. We should probably be raising more of a fuss about that if we think a guy doing this 1400 years ago is a problem.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States
A guy doing it 1400 years ago wouldn’t be a problem now… if the pedo’s religion didn’t idolize himself and if people didn’t use it to justify their own child abuse.
Also, if you think america’s CA is bad, take a look at unicef’s data: 51.4% and 28.3% of young women in bangladesh and afganisan respectively are married off while underage.
I can’t speak about afganistan, but as a bangladeshi, I can confirm that it’s fucking disgusting listening to people I know discussing child marriage as if it’s completely normal, citing that muhammad did so too.
It’s crazy that these barbaric religions have still managed to survive to this day, and some people continue to defend them
deleted by creator
writing about nuances, some other things to consider would be
i can’t answer for them and i’m glad to not to live back there and then.
rules and customs that seem ridiculous today were maybe necessary there and then.
Strangely it was just absolutely necessary for Big Mo to have ten wives, when everybody else had to stop at 4.
I’m sure that was an action motivated entirely by social necessity, not powerful men being horndogs.
Was Epstein Island socially necessary? I guess in 1000 years the Church of Trump devotees will be making similar arguments.
the thing is, i’m not a devotee. i’m just an atheist who sees that hate won’t convince anybody that there are no gods. Here, most of the things i read stinks of hate, awful awful hate.
philosophy literally means love of knowledge. You have to love this knowledge and share this love.
Did you read the book that got Salman Rushdie almost killed? You may like it and it sure is a more interesting read then all these. It’s fun too (and that’s why it’s dangerous)
Lmao my guy over here trying to defend child marriage and rape with “akshually, societal context of the time makes that okay”.
Will you attempt to defend slavery next?
Some things in history are fucked up and objectively bad. Just because civilizations - even major ones - throughout history did a thing does not make it subjectively or objectively defensible, let alone acceptable.
And before you even try to use “now vs future historians” as an argument: yes, I’m also pretty sure some things we do today and consider to be uncontroversial will, in the future, be considered reprehensible.
where did he defend those? Read the comment again, slowly
Stfu subhuman
“Nothing is More Unfair than to Judge the Men of the Past by the Ideas of the Present”
I hear this quote in these contexts, but the ideas have always been there, abolitionists have existed as long as slavery has. It was wrong then and wrong now.
So wrong now it would have been a legal marriage in at least five states (pending judicial or parental approval):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States#U.S._states
one day we may say the same thing for the casual meat consumption of today.
ideas are here but most people don’t think it’s horrible to have factories of meat
Oh hell yea. I say that today too. The animals and the process to create our food deserves much more respect and regulation than currently in practice.
Slavery was accepted back in the day and today we think it’s horrible. Should we be judging the slave owners of the 1800s as advocates for slavery?
This is a rhetorical question, the answer is yes. The same applies to a religion that promotes pedophiles.
Chattel slavery was outlawed in the US in the early 1940s, not in the 1800s.
Source: U.S. Constitution, article VI, paragraph 2
Source: U.S. Constitution, amendment XIII, section 1 (along with the note above that section stating the date it was passed and ratified)
Slavery in the US was outlawed in 1865. Corrupt assholes breaking laws doesn’t mean those laws aren’t in effect, it just means they’re criminals.
This isn’t wrong, but it never had any sort of effect on debt bondage.
The problem here is that the U.S. had black codes and Jim Crow laws, things created specifically to target black people. These by and large restricted black people from owning property, marry freely, enter contracts, testify in court against white people, speaking too loudly in the presence of a white woman.
Breaking these meant that the person in question would be tried and convicted, thus entering debt. A white person could then buy this debt, and the black person would have to “work off” this debt for an indeterminate amount of time.
This was in place for a very long time, and wasn’t overturned until 1941 when the office of the attorney general issued circular 3591, classifying debt peonage as slavery. They did this because the FDR administration was worried that the enemies would use the American treatment of black people against them in a propaganda war.
TIL the US used to be so racist against black people. Good thing they wisened up, and nowadays through student debts and mortgages, any bank owner (mostly white) can still have some control over laborers of all races!