Islam is now also an excuse for them to abuse children?

Status
Not open for further replies.
1) Exactly which crimes are they not allowed to discuss? The article isn't clear.

2) On the subject of Catholicism and child abuse - that's not really to do with the church covering things up; it's to do with the idea that things discussed in confession can't be revealed by the person hearing the confession. The church wouldn't actively cover things up, as far as I know, but they're hamstrung when it comes to matters discussed in confession.
 
vonhelmet said:
The church wouldn't actively cover things up, as far as I know, but they're hamstrung when it comes to matters discussed in confession.
Click to expand...

They certainly would!. There are lawsuits, ongoing or settled (globally) worth millions in compensation, related to institutional abuse and systematic denial/cover-ups. And the matter relates directly to institutional denial, not to the sanctity of confession.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2079126.ece
http://www.secularism.org.uk/catholicchurchfacesbiggestabusec.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/01/npriest01.xml

Etc etc, google gives lots of results (string: catholic church court abuse).
 
Okay, let me put it this way.

Just because it is against their religion to 'discuss' their crimes with anyone... when they eventually get released do you not think they have more chance of re-offending?

The length of time they spend in prison I honestly think is irrelevant... i'm all for them being beaten to a pulp.. because that's just exactly what they deserve.

But given the choice, would you rather have someone out of prison who has had some sort of re-habilitation, or someone whos had more time behind bars with nothing like that, because they hid behind their religion?

To me it would seem that there is a more chance of the latter re-offending..
 
West said:
Okay, let me put it this way.

Just because it is against their religion to 'discuss' their crimes with anyone... when they eventually get released do you not think they have more chance of re-offending?

The length of time they spend in prison I honestly think is irrelevant... i'm all for them being beaten to a pulp.. because that's just exactly what they deserve.

But given the choice, would you rather have someone out of prison who has had some sort of re-habilitation, or someone whos had more time behind bars with nothing like that, because they hid behind their religion?

To me it would seem that there is a more chance of the latter re-offending..
Click to expand...


Anyone can refuse to do it though, some say because they don't want to they think it's stupid, they just want to server their time, some because they don't think what they did was wrong etc, they are not getting any different treatment because they are Muslim, thats just the reason they are giving for not doing the course.
 
If anything, the article seems to say that those who don't speak about their offenses will likely face longer jail times. I don't see the problem except 1. the newspaper and 2. the gullible idiots who fall for their sensationalism everytime. Sorry OP, but you got baited big time.

Have fun.
 
Slinwagh said:
Again religous hypocrisy is alive and well in all religions.
Click to expand...

Spoken in well-meaning ignorance, hypocrisy isn't endemic to all religion. Also, the Roman catholic Church (an organisation) is very different from paedophillia being written into the a holy book, nor are the deeds of the deeds of the RC excuse to tolerate the abuse of children under any ideology.
 
jdickerson said:
Google Aisha and Muhammad.
Click to expand...

And then look at marriages in the western world at that time...

600AD wasn't really a nice place to live in if you were female. There are plenty of legitimate gripes about Islam without the whole "Mohammed was a peado" rubbish. The world was a very different place then with a woman being considered a woman when she started mensturating.
 
West said:
Okay, let me put it this way.

Just because it is against their religion to 'discuss' their crimes with anyone... when they eventually get released do you not think they have more chance of re-offending?

The length of time they spend in prison I honestly think is irrelevant... i'm all for them being beaten to a pulp.. because that's just exactly what they deserve.

But given the choice, would you rather have someone out of prison who has had some sort of re-habilitation, or someone whos had more time behind bars with nothing like that, because they hid behind their religion?

To me it would seem that there is a more chance of the latter re-offending..
Click to expand...

I am not entirely convinced that so-called rehabilitation schemes actually work. So a longer jail sentence sounds fine to me.
 
RDM said:
And then look at marriages in the western world at that time...

600AD wasn't really a nice place to live in if you were female. There are plenty of legitimate gripes about Islam without the whole "Mohammed was a peado" rubbish. The world was a very different place then with a woman being considered a woman when she started mensturating.
Click to expand...

I'm curious, why is a practice from our past that we now consider abhorrant okay when practice by Muslims in a modern setting? Why is our past any excuse for the behaviour or standards of others today?

It's not. People do not think independently about Islam, and in doing so are seeking to ignore or disclaim the negative aspects of it. Wanting to kill homosexuals isn't okay, regardless of who did it in the past it is not okay - it wasn't okay then, it isn't okay now, regardless of who does it. Child abuse isn't okay, not then, not now. This is not about how good you look tolerating things you consider foreign, this is about being unafraid to oppose something that is wrong.

So instead of tolerating the things that allow hatred of women, abuse of children and murder of homosexuals - lets just put our prejudices aside and be quite honest about a brutal, uncaring and backwards ideology. This isn't about how good you would look tolerating something you consider foreign, this is about being unafraid to oppose something that is wrong.
 
cleanbluesky said:
I'm curious, why is a practice from our past that we now consider abhorrant okay when practice by Muslims in a modern setting? Why is our past any excuse for the behaviour or standards of others today?
Click to expand...

Can you point out where I said it was? All I said was that Mohammed marrying a young girl was nothing unusual for the times and shouldn't be used as a slur against Islam. There are more than enough legitimate reasons to dislike Islam.
 
vonhelmet said:
Riddle me this - why is a practice from our past that we consider abhorrent to be deemed abhorrent for all who practise it today?
Click to expand...

it is socially unacceptable by our standards today and has therefore been hardwired into our brains that it is wrong.

imo it is wrong.
 
Yrkoon said:
it is socially unacceptable by our standards today and has therefore been hardwired into our brains that it is wrong.
Click to expand...

That would be more like softwiring, if there is such a thing, but I appreciate your point if you mean that it is ingrained into our thinking.

Yrkoon said:
imo it is wrong.
Click to expand...

And in someone else's o it is not...
 
West said:
Can someone please tell me what the hell is wrong with this country? I thought....(blah blah blah)
Click to expand...

Knee jerk idiots who want something to discriminate against are the problem with this country imo.....

cleanbluesky said:
I'm curious, why is a practice from our past that we now consider abhorrant okay when practice by Muslims in a modern setting? Why is our past any excuse for the behaviour or standards of others today?

It's not. People do not think independently about Islam, and in doing so are seeking to ignore or disclaim the negative aspects of it. Wanting to kill homosexuals isn't okay, regardless of who did it in the past it is not okay - it wasn't okay then, it isn't okay now, regardless of who does it. Child abuse isn't okay, not then, not now. This is not about how good you look tolerating things you consider foreign, this is about being unafraid to oppose something that is wrong.

So instead of tolerating the things that allow hatred of women, abuse of children and murder of homosexuals - lets just put our prejudices aside and be quite honest about a brutal, uncaring and backwards ideology. This isn't about how good you would look tolerating something you consider foreign, this is about being unafraid to oppose something that is wrong.
Click to expand...

The practices here that you describe, you seem to be ascribing them to Islam as if its Islamic Law. In fact, murdering homosexuals is not sanctioned at all in any of my readings on the matter. True, some schools do prescribe capital punishment but that is down to their implementation of the law. Also with regard to the 'Muhammed (PBUH) is a paedo', conflicting accounts put the girls age at 19. People like you are far too quick to use the big words like 'ideology' and 'tolerating' with maybe zero time spent actually reading and consulting primary sources (Imams, the Hadiths or Quran) about these matters. In the historical context, Islam was the main force that emancipated women in the Arabian peninsula - giving them proper human rights - at the time of its revelation.
 
Last edited:
Another 'sensationalist' thread title in GD that fails to understand the article it is posted about... :rolleyes:


Tefal said:
Anyone can refuse to do it though, some say because they don't want to they think it's stupid, they just want to server their time, some because they don't think what they did was wrong etc, they are not getting any different treatment because they are Muslim, thats just the reason they are giving for not doing the course.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it's a 'non-story', barely worthy of mention yet the Sun and the OP make out like its worthy of 'news'....
 
Random Guy said:
In the historical context, Islam was the main force that emancipated women in the Arabian peninsula - giving them proper human rights - at the time of its revelation.
Click to expand...

Of course, it didn't take much to "emancipate" women in those days, considering the conditions under which they were suffering at the time. Just about anything would have been an improvement.

Still, it was emancipation... of a sort. And how amusingly ironic, given that Islam is now virtually synonymous with misogyny.
 
West said:
Okay, let me put it this way.

Just because it is against their religion to 'discuss' their crimes with anyone... when they eventually get released do you not think they have more chance of re-offending?

The length of time they spend in prison I honestly think is irrelevant... i'm all for them being beaten to a pulp.. because that's just exactly what they deserve.

But given the choice, would you rather have someone out of prison who has had some sort of re-habilitation, or someone whos had more time behind bars with nothing like that, because they hid behind their religion?

To me it would seem that there is a more chance of the latter re-offending..
Click to expand...


You do realise that they are child abusers paedos you are talking about?

They are the lowest of low in the jail system and they will probably have an arse like a wizards sleeve by the time they get out(if they get out) and would have realised what being abused is really like.

Its probably more helpful then rehab TBH:p
 
i guess tho that during an investigation they may get let off with holding information but then again if there convicted of such a crime that doesn't really matter
ive got no problem with this legislation if they dont want help thats there choice.

otherwise the thread title is a bit ott

also am i the only 1 who didnt read the original link and scrolled down till i found the one from the times
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom