Rant on Islam comments

[Walking Cat Bed]

I just want to be careful here. Sometimes, someone who is mentally ill may engage in violent actions and religious obsessions, but it is ableist to assume that any violent action that we can't really understand is due to mental illness. I'm not saying that you are doing this, but I do hear a lot of knee-jerk "that person must be crazy" when there is no evidence of actual mental illness.

Are you claiming that a tendency to be violent is solely innate, and that society has NO effect on violence? If that was the case, rates of violence would be the same across countries, cultures, socio-economic groups, etc., and wouldn't change over time.

Oh, I get what you're saying. And I've had a couple of very long days (10+ hours of class and work) so I haven't been expressing myself as clearly as I'd like.

Basically, what I'm going for:

Some people are violent because they enjoy hurting other people, and the worst of them try to convince others that being violent is a positive thing. See: serial killers, the Pearls, anyone who enlists in military service or joins the police force because they want to be able to hurt people without consequences. (These are the people who I hold fully responsible for their violence.) That's who I was referring to with "violent people are violent people". I'm not a Degreed Psychology Professional, but I'm assuming that people like this exist wherever there are people.

Most people who do violent things don't intend to harm others:

Some people are violent because they don't know how (or aren't able) to handle their reactions to situations. See: toddlers, anyone who carries a gun because they're afraid of Bad Guys.

Some people have a psychiatric condition that either distorts how they perceive reality or disrupts how they respond to threats (real or perceived). They need psychiatric care -- whatever works for them.

Most people who aren't intentionally violent need information; if their actions cause unintentional harm, they probably need counseling.

I do think that one reason there's so much individual violence in America is because of easy access to weapons. I'm not in favor of banning guns outright, but a better system (I don't know what that better system is) would probably be helpful. And societal perceptions of violence, especially associated with race, need adjusting. MOST people who do a violent thing wouldn't repeat it, and would probably not do it to begin with if they could have a do-over.

And I'm only half-caffeinated, so if I'm making an ass of myself, just tell me. :)

[VelociRapture]

Islam differs from Christianity in the sense that Muhammad for the most part wasn't telling his followers "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not" in the way Jesus does in the gospels. Rather, his entire life is supposed to be a model for how Muslims should act, whether they live in 7th century Arabia or 21st century London (at least, according to Salafists). To them, he's the most perfect human being who ever lived, which was why he was chosen to be the final prophet. Salafi Muslims think that everything Muhammad did should be emulated, from the way he wore his clothes to the way he ate food to how he conducted his domestic life. This is different than Christianity, which teaches that Jesus was fully divine and fully human, but that no ordinary human can ever try to measure up to his example. While the Catholic church holds up the Holy Family as being the model for the Christian family (which is odd, since the members of that family were supposed to be an elderly celibate man, a perfectly virginal woman born without original sin, and a demi-god, but whatever), they don't expect modern Catholics to dress exactly like Jesus, Mary, or Joseph or to live like 1st century Roman Palestinian Jews in mud houses. Tell Salafi Muslims that Muhammad was wrong to have sex with a nine year old would make no sense to them, because they believe that Muhammad never did anything wrong.

And I would say that marrying and having sex with a nine year old girl definitely does harm to her, regardless of what her culture has to say about it. Girls of that age are not physically or emotionally ready to have sex, and for good reason. To put it bluntly, having sexual intercourse with a nine year old will cause severe internal damage, if not kill her. The afore mentioned Margaret Beaufort almost died from giving birth when she was twelve or thirteen, and the resulting internal damage was such that she could never have another baby. This is also why there was so much concern about that ten year old girl who recently gave birth in Central America, because her body wasn't developed enough to carry, much less deliver, a baby. Since the average age of menarche has been getting gradually lower since the Industrial Revolution, I would even question whether most girls, especially those living as peasants, in pre-modern societies would be sexually mature at nine.

I agree with you. Just want to point out I never said a child the age Aisha is supposed to have been wouldn't be harmed. I did point out that according to the customs and beliefs of the time, they did not view her as a child the way we do. Biologically speaking, of course someone that age is nowhere near ready for that type of interaction.

(And I am extremely aware of Margaret Beaufort's reproductive issues after giving birth to her son - I am a major Tudor nerd. :) )

Also, thank you for taking the time to explain the differences between Christianity and certain sects of Islam to me. What others have mentioned makes a bit more sense when worded that way.

Are we really trying to justify Muhammed raping a nine year old? WTF. Forget the rest of his wives...

Why is everyone so quick to excuse the bad things in Islam?

And to note, since it is likely that Muhammed is a myth...that means someone made up the story about him rapinghis 9 year old wife and then people are trying to justify a made up rape. :shock:

Please point out where I stated that raping a child is perfectly acceptable at anytime.

We aren't excusing the bad things in Islam. I flat out stated that Muhammad having a sexual relationship with a child is disgusting. I feel that way, however, because I was raised in a time and place that teaches me that children that age are nowhere close to being mature enough for that - we know that because our society has evolved over the past 1500 years to understand that menstruation doesn't equal adulthood or maturity. Muhammad and Aisha were not raised in that type of society - to them the start of menstruation meant a female could have children which was one of the main motivating factors behind marriage in the first place. The same was true of many cultures throughout history, as you can see by the list of child marriages I made.

The difference, as has been pointed out, is that Muhammad has people emulating his life while people aren't, for instance, attempting to emulate the life of King John of England or Edmund Tudor. In my opinion, however, people in modern times who continue this practice will do so for reasons that reach beyond religion. Economic circumstances, for instance, likely play a massive role in why so many children are married off each year. I'm sure religion does as well, but it isn't just Muslim parents marrying their children off.

Should we address the role that religions play in child marriages? Of course we should. If its being used as justification then it needs to be addressed. But we can't simply state that Muhammad was the worst guy ever and not do anything to understand why he did what he did because that isn't going to solve the problem.

ETA: Just to add, I pointed out the fact that there have been child marriages in other cultures throughout history because there are people out there who seriously think Muhammad was the only bad guy who married a child and that Islam is the only religion that permits it - which is untrue.

ETA 2: Just realized you weren't addressing me specifically. Apologies. But, again, I don't recall seeing anyone on here state that raping a child is ever an acceptable or a good thing, nor have I seen anyone attempt to justify it - explain why they didn't view it the same way we do, yes.

[VelociRapture]

Oh, I get what you're saying. And I've had a couple of very long days (10+ hours of class and work) so I haven't been expressing myself as clearly as I'd like.

Basically, what I'm going for:

Some people are violent because they enjoy hurting other people, and the worst of them try to convince others that being violent is a positive thing. See: serial killers, the Pearls, anyone who enlists in military service or joins the police force because they want to be able to hurt people without consequences. (These are the people who I hold fully responsible for their violence.) That's who I was referring to with "violent people are violent people". I'm not a Degreed Psychology Professional, but I'm assuming that people like this exist wherever there are people.

Most people who do violent things don't intend to harm others:

Some people are violent because they don't know how (or aren't able) to handle their reactions to situations. See: toddlers, anyone who carries a gun because they're afraid of Bad Guys.

Some people have a psychiatric condition that either distorts how they perceive reality or disrupts how they respond to threats (real or perceived). They need psychiatric care -- whatever works for them.

Most people who aren't intentionally violent need information; if their actions cause unintentional harm, they probably need counseling.

I do think that one reason there's so much individual violence in America is because of easy access to weapons. I'm not in favor of banning guns outright, but a better system (I don't know what that better system is) would probably be helpful. And societal perceptions of violence, especially associated with race, need adjusting. MOST people who do a violent thing wouldn't repeat it, and would probably not do it to begin with if they could have a do-over.

And I'm only half-caffeinated, so if I'm making an ass of myself, just tell me. :)

To the underlined - I agree with you on this. I'd love to see a universal background check kind of system put into place, a national law mandating there be a specific waiting period before a gun can be brought home, and mandatory gun safety courses for new gun owners - but that only addresses the people who are purchasing guns in a legal manner and does nothing to address illegal purchases. I honestly have no clue how we could even begin to address that issue or how we could get illegal weapons off the streets.

[2xx1xy1JD]

To add to the role of secularism, Talal Asad (1993) argues in "Genealogy of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam" John Hopkins University Press that secularism is an inherently Christian concept. It starts with Jesus saying to render upon Caesar what belongs to Caesar, thus removing religion from the realm of politics. Bear in mind that he doesn't say that it worked out that way historically, but that there is a Christian justification for the division between state and religion, coming from JC himself.

He posits that this idea does not exist in Islam, which makes secularism difficult to translate to a societal setting dominated by Islam. Very, very roughly, he's saying that Western ideas of secularism don't work well in societies dominated by Islam, because secularism is a Christian idea. Right or wrong, it's an interesting idea that he presents about the pervasiveness of philosophies, religious origins and lasting effects. If nothing else, it's food for thought.

Interesting though. How much does secularism/separation of religious and state have to do with that teaching, versus an understanding that mixing politics and religion can be toxic and lead to sectarian conflict?

When the Church exercised power, it didn't say "what about that render unto Caesar stuff?" when imposing the Inquisition or during the Crusades or doing anything else. I'd probably argue that tolerance is what you get when you realize that imposing your views led to centuries of bloodshed.

There are also moderate statement within Islam, such as "there is no compulsion in Islam". There are a variety of views on how it should be interpreted (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara_256), but it could theoretically support the idea that governments should not be forcing belief and observance.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Oh, I get what you're saying. And I've had a couple of very long days (10+ hours of class and work) so I haven't been expressing myself as clearly as I'd like.

Basically, what I'm going for:

Some people are violent because they enjoy hurting other people, and the worst of them try to convince others that being violent is a positive thing. See: serial killers, the Pearls, anyone who enlists in military service or joins the police force because they want to be able to hurt people without consequences. (These are the people who I hold fully responsible for their violence.) That's who I was referring to with "violent people are violent people". I'm not a Degreed Psychology Professional, but I'm assuming that people like this exist wherever there are people.

Most people who do violent things don't intend to harm others:

Some people are violent because they don't know how (or aren't able) to handle their reactions to situations. See: toddlers, anyone who carries a gun because they're afraid of Bad Guys.

Some people have a psychiatric condition that either distorts how they perceive reality or disrupts how they respond to threats (real or perceived). They need psychiatric care -- whatever works for them.

Most people who aren't intentionally violent need information; if their actions cause unintentional harm, they probably need counseling.

I do think that one reason there's so much individual violence in America is because of easy access to weapons. I'm not in favor of banning guns outright, but a better system (I don't know what that better system is) would probably be helpful. And societal perceptions of violence, especially associated with race, need adjusting. MOST people who do a violent thing wouldn't repeat it, and would probably not do it to begin with if they could have a do-over.

And I'm only half-caffeinated, so if I'm making an ass of myself, just tell me. :)

Thanks for the response.

My view on violence and society is this: Most people do what most people around them are doing, most of the time.

In a law-abiding environment, it takes an outlier to commit a violent act. That person could be mentally ill in a clinical sense, but they could also be prone to violence due to bad upbringing, personality disorder, having some fucked up beliefs, or just being a raging evil asshole.

In an environment where some forms of violence are condoned or are more common, more people engage in that form of violence. If spanking is seen as acceptable, people who are not otherwise violent may spank. If slamming into someone is seen as ok and punching someone is only punished by sitting for 2 min on a bench as long as this occurs during a hockey game, then hockey players will be violent on ice even if they are perfectly normal off of it. If there is a riot and people are looting, setting fire to cars or hurting people, others may join in even if they have no history of violence.

In an environment where violence is the norm, it takes an outlier to oppose it.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I posted about this over in AYTFJ? before I saw this thread. But I feel its appropriate to put here as well and I think it's a topic worth discussing. Forgive me for how long this turned out to be. And for those of you who have read this elsewhere already - sorry!

There was one poster (possibly PregnantPornStar - forgive me if I'm wrong!) on the other thread who made comments regarding Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, who was 6 when they married and 9 or 10 when the marriage was consummated. I just want to take a moment to address this and explain why I think we shouldn't judge him too harshly on this specifically (please read this before labeling me a pedophile sympathizer):

Yes, Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is extremely troubling and offends modern sensibilities. Most rational adults in western societies today would agree that marrying a 6 year old and having sex with a 9 year old is beyond repugnant. At the time Muhammad and Aisha lived, however, it was not considered as such - it was considered a strategic move to strengthen his position in society. Additionally, a young female who had reached puberty and started to menstruate was thought to be eligible for marriage across many different cultures, including cultures in the Middle-East, because she was biologically capable of bearing children - which was one of the main purposes for marriage in the first place. Muhammad reportedly allowed Aisha to remain with her parents until she reached puberty - it was at that point that she left home and conjugal relations began.

There are plenty of examples from history that show this isn't something limited only to Middle-Eastern cultures either. For instance:

- Margaret Beaufort, who was about 12 when her second marriage was consummated and 13 when she gave birth to her only child, Henry Tudor (later, King Henry VII of England).

- Isabella of Valois, who was was 6 at the time she married King Richard II of England (then 29) and who was 9 when she was widowed.

- Marie Antoinette was 14 at the time of her marriage to the Dauphin Louis of France, who was 15. Their first child was born 7 years later, leading some to question whether they knew what to do in order to conceive.

- The last Emperor of China, Puyi (then 16), choose his bride, 16 year-old Gobulo Wan Rong, from a photo lineup. They had no children and whether the marriage was consummated is in doubt.

- Ankhesenamun was about 13 when she married her younger half-brother, Tutankhamun (who was around 9 or 10.) They had two daughters, both stillborn, before his death at age 19.

- Prince Arthur of England and his bride, Katherine of Aragon (later married to his brother Henry VIII), were both 16 when they married. Please see the creation of the Anglican Church for why the question of consummation of this marriage was so important.

- Elisabeth of Bavaria was 16 when she married Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria, who was 24 at the time. They had several children together.

- King John of England was 34 when he married Isabella of Angouleme, then 12. Their first child was born 7 years after the wedding - so either they waited to consummate the marriage or they just had rotten luck with conceiving. (Thanks for reminding me of this one sawasdee!)

- Queen Victoria's eldest daughter, Emperess Victoria of Germany, married her husband (Frederick) when she was 17 and he was 27.

- Judith of France was likely about 13 or 14 when she married King Æthelwulf of Wessex in 856 - when the King was about 50. They had no children and the King died shortly into the marriage. She was then married to his son - who also died before they had children.

- Margaret of Bohemia, Queen of Hungary, married Louis I of Hungary at 7. She died at age 14 without having any children.

- Beatrice of Luxembourg married Charles I of Hungary when she was about 13 - Charles was about 30. Beatrice died in childbirth a year later at the age of 14 or 15.

- Isabella of Hainault was married at the age of 10 to Philip II of France, who was 15. It's likely the marriage was consummated soon after because only a few years later her husband was considering setting her aside for failure to provide an heir (she was 14); he didn't set her aside due to her overwhelming popularity with the common folk. She had one son at the age of 17 and died in childbirth (giving birth to twins who died 4 days after her) when she was just about to turn 20.

- Joan I of Navarre married Philip IV of France when she was 11 and he was 16. Their first child was born when she was about 15.

Yes, Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is extremely troubling and offends modern sensibilities. At the time they lived, however, it was not considered as such. And as the list I compiled above shows, this was not something simply limited to Middle-Eastern cultures or only to the time period in which Muhammad lived. He was far from alone in marrying and having sexual relations with someone we would consider a child in modern times.

We can judge all we like, but I find it a bit unreasonable to impose modern beliefs and standards on people who lived in such a different time and place. Should we judge those who use Muhammad's marriage to Aisha as justification for child marriage in modern times? Absolutely - because they live in a time where we know better.

Can we know how Muhammad would act if he were alive today? No. We have no clue what he would think or do because his time and place in history is so different from our own.

I'm less interested in what a religious figure allegedly did during his life centuries ago, and more interested in how that translated into action in today's world.

I found this article on age of marriage around the world: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 15517.html There are some predominantly Christian countries with low minimum ages for marriage. I know that in the province of Quebec, Canada, it used to be possible for girls to get married as young as 12 (my friend's mother got married at 15). In Iran, the legal age for marriage had been 18 prior to the Islamic Revolution, and it was lowered to 9 by Khomeini. There's no ancient context for that - 1979 was not ancient history. Child marriage is also common in Yemen even today.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I find it weird that if people are so outraged by child brides in Islamic countries, there's not more uproar about the actions of FLDS here.

Isn't there uproar, though? Warren Jeffs is in jail. Several years ago, there was a raid that resulted in the children all being taken into foster care temporarily. They are widely regarded as a cult, and criticized for things like child marriage. There are books, reality shows, etc. focusing on the issue. I'm not American, but are there really many people in the United States who are totally okay with them?

[VelociRapture]

I'm less interested in what a religious figure allegedly did during his life centuries ago, and more interested in how that translated into action in today's world.

I found this article on age of marriage around the world: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 15517.html There are some predominantly Christian countries with low minimum ages for marriage. I know that in the province of Quebec, Canada, it used to be possible for girls to get married as young as 12 (my friend's mother got married at 15). In Iran, the legal age for marriage had been 18 prior to the Islamic Revolution, and it was lowered to 9 by Khomeini. There's no ancient context for that - 1979 was not ancient history. Child marriage is also common in Yemen even today.

I know. I was pointing out that in ancient cultures child marriages weren't just limited to Muslims - it was a practice that was widespread across a variety of cultures and religions. There are people in the world who honestly believe only people of the Islamic faith participate in child marriages - and that simply isn't true.

I'm going to take a guess and say Khomeini's lowering the marriage age has to do with keeping control over the population, especially the female population. We know that when a female marries at a young age her chances of earning a decent education are cut dramatically due to marital and child raising responsibilities. Uneducated people are far easier to control than educated people (see the Duggar kids for an excellent example.)

It likely also has to do with the fact that he seems to have been more of a literalist when it came to the Qu'ran. Many liberal Muslims understand that marrying children is something that once was accepted, but no longer has a place in society; it is something that needs to be confined to ancient history. Many conservative Muslims don't understand that differentiation - apparently because accepting that as truth would mean undermining Islamic teachings as a whole. If I'm understanding other posters correctly, many Muslims view the Qu'ran and Islam as perfect - taking away parts of the teachings, even ones that we understand to be completely wrong today, would undermine that. . . so its kind of an all or nothing type deal for some of them.

*Note: I think that may be what's confusing me most about this discussion right now. I've never been a literalist-minded person. To me, it makes perfect sense that something that once was common now isn't because humanity has evolved past that. I think I'm having a tough time trying to wrap my mind around the idea that there are people who honestly think child marriages are a good idea, simply because a Prophet they revere once did it.

Another part that is probably confusing me: The idea that the Qu'ran is so revered because it is the actual words of Allah as uttered to Muhammad and those messages are eternal. Again, this is something that feels very different than anything I've ever come across before.

[morri]

People and businesses have been destroyed by christian fundies, in montana theres only 1 abortion clinic left, which looks like a fortress .

[FundieFarmer]

Isn't there uproar, though? Warren Jeffs is in jail. Several years ago, there was a raid that resulted in the children all being taken into foster care temporarily. They are widely regarded as a cult, and criticized for things like child marriage. There are books, reality shows, etc. focusing on the issue. I'm not American, but are there really many people in the United States who are totally okay with them?

I don't think they'd be ok with it, but I think there's widespread ignorance about what is really going on. The FLDS ran a strong PR campaign during the raid that actually resulted in a fair bit of outrage against the removal of the children. There seems to be little to no public or media eyes on them, and what oversight there is from the government is tentative given the outcome of the last action taken against them. I think many people just see them as "extreme Mormons in prairie dresses" or something like the Amish/Mennonites, and haven't looked into the true crimes they've committed.

[PregnantPornStar]

Isn't there uproar, though? Warren Jeffs is in jail. Several years ago, there was a raid that resulted in the children all being taken into foster care temporarily. They are widely regarded as a cult, and criticized for things like child marriage. There are books, reality shows, etc. focusing on the issue. I'm not American, but are there really many people in the United States who are totally okay with them?

No, there are not many people in the States who are okay with them. It should also be noted that the number of FLDS members isn't estimated to be more than 10k and not even supported by "mainstream" LDS. That isn't to say there are not a few crazies who condone FLDS, but overall, there are laws against it and nothing major or relevant to support them. They are a cult. As you said, there are plenty of things speaking out against them and being critical of FLDS doesn't earn you a public flogging or worse and there isn't a nation that is run under the pretense of "FLDS Law" and it is doubtful there ever will be.

When you look at Nikah Mut'ah, which essentially is legal prostitution that can include Children, we are on a different page.Yes, I realize that not all Muslims practice Nikah Mut'ah, but it exists and is not illegal. There are many terrible things in FLDS, but luckily they are not generally supported by the rest of America.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Excellent post 2xx1xy1JD .

I am speaking from a European perspective and a big part of the problem here is that it is the big muslim organizations that get a lot of attention and that politicians choose to work with. More often than not, they are funded by Saudi or the Muslim Brotherhood and therefore have a very hardcore view on islam, more or less visible to outsiders.

Numerous politicians have been to the big MB mosque, none have visited the Bosnian moderate imam who uses his own basement as a mosque for his fellow countrymen who live in exile. The more moderate imams or organizations gets no foreign funding and are struggling to make ends meet and don't have the money or organizational skills to get attention in the press, from politicians. It's probably not even something they are particularly interested in, they just want to go on with their business.

That's a huge problem that should be discussed more imo.

I also think that so many people, including politicians, have very little understanding of how many brances of islam there are and how different they are. It's just not one big islam where you can lump all the muslims together.

I read a blogpost from a young muslim woman who was so tired of hearing how great it must be for her that a huge mosque was being built in her hometown. Her reply was "thanks, but I'm from a smaller muslim movement and the people at the big mosque are the people that use to kill us". The mosque is sunni and she was shia, if I remember correctly she was Alawite, same as president Al-Assad in Syria.

Excellent point.

Unfortunately, I've seen a bizarre amount of condemnation in Western media for smaller sects and Muslims who speak out for change.

The Toronto Star, for example, is the largest newspaper in Canada. In a recent editorial, they said:

The Harper government has systematically boycotted mainstream Muslim organizations. It deals with two small segments — the Aga Khan Ismailis and the Ahmadis, with Harper and Kenney visiting their mosques.

Like the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives use a handful of dissident Muslims, who attack other Muslims, in the name of secularism, and praise the government. Kenney was honoured by one such marginal group for his ban on the niqab, an event at which a woman entered wearing a niqab, only to cast it off dramatically. It is hard to imagine him smirking away at a gathering at which Catholicism was mocked by a woman who came in a nun’s habit only to throw it off, or Orthodox Judaism was insulted by a man sporting a fake beard, long locks and a black hat only to disdainfully cast them off.

In 2012, when the Harper government axed the anti-hate provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act, it did so mostly at the behest of those who wanted the absolute freedom to attack Muslims and Islam. (Now the Tories want to curb free speech in the name of curbing terrorism.)

The Conservatives have courted Coptic Christians from Egypt, Bahais from Iran, and Christians and Ahamdis from Pakistan — people who fled persecution from Muslim majority nations and deserve support. But the Conservatives have exploited and fanned “old country†fault lines and mollycoddled anti-Muslim bigots.

Let's take a closer look at what this really means. The government is supportive of the Ismaili community, which has a track record of being pretty moderate. Harper has met with the Aga Khan and contributed toward work that the community does to support maternal and child health. The government is supportive of the Ahmadi community. They follow a teaching which states that jihad is intended to be something that a believer fights within himself, and that violent jihad is not justified. I'd think that supporting these communities is a good thing, but to The Star, supporting the Ahmadis when they are being viciously persecuted in Pakistan is exploiting "old country" fault lines.

The government has met with the Muslim Canadian Congress. It's a moderate group that promotes things like liberal democracy and human rights, and that is critical of violent jihad: muslimcanadiancongress.info/?page_id=8 It was founded by Tarek Fateh, who wrote a book called "The Jew Is Not My Enemy". The Star refers to them as marginal dissidents.

The issue that the group has with the niqab was never that it was a distinctive piece of religious garb. They specifically objected to what they viewed as gender oppression, and the fact that some women are compelled to wear the niqab or burqa.

The government has decided to avoid the Canadian Islamic Congress (which ceased to exist in 2014). It was founded and formerly led by Mohamed Elmasry. Elmasry claimed on the Michael Coren show in 2004 that any Israeli over 18 was a legimate target for terrorists. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story. ... 65b1a654d9 Elmasry's successor never condemned his statement. The organization also opposed Hamas and Hezbollah being included on a list of terrorist organizations.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I don't think they'd be ok with it, but I think there's widespread ignorance about what is really going on. The FLDS ran a strong PR campaign during the raid that actually resulted in a fair bit of outrage against the removal of the children. There seems to be little to no public or media eyes on them, and what oversight there is from the government is tentative given the outcome of the last action taken against them. I think many people just see them as "extreme Mormons in prairie dresses" or something like the Amish/Mennonites, and haven't looked into the true crimes they've committed.

I thought that some of the opposition to the raids was about police procedure, including the fact that the original call turned out to be a hoax and that they were literally ripping children away from their mothers. By contrast, I can't recall seeing any real criticism of the jailing of Warren Jeffs. It's possible to criticize police action without condoning child marriage within the FLDS.

[nausicaa]

All 1,6 billion Muslims, yes pretty much, even here in Europe in their closed sharia communities.

I'm just gonna leave this right here. :?

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'm just gonna leave this right here. :?

Go to my first post.

Go directly to my first post.

Do not pass GO.

Do not collect $200.00

[nausicaa]

Go to my first post.

Go directly to my first post.

Do not pass GO.

Do not collect $200.00

Wait, is that directed at me or latraviata? I interpreted your first post to mean that you are sick of people making sweeping, knee jerk statements about Islam rather than being able to discuss the topic with nuance and an understanding of the cultural and historical factors involved. Which is what I was pointing out...

Why don't I get to pass GO? And I want my damn $200. :(

[MatthewDuggar]

I just wanted to thank those who have been adding value to this thread. I will sadly admit I know next to nothing about Islam and it's been very enlightening.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Wait, is that directed at me or latraviata? I interpreted your first post to mean that you are sick of people making sweeping, knee jerk statements about Islam rather than being able to discuss the topic with nuance and an understanding of the cultural and historical factors involved. Which is what I was pointing out...

Why don't I get to pass GO? And I want my damn $200. :(

No, latraviata. It was just more convenient to reply to your post than to search for hers.

[FundieFarmer]

I thought that some of the opposition to the raids was about police procedure, including the fact that the original call turned out to be a hoax and that they were literally ripping children away from their mothers. By contrast, I can't recall seeing any real criticism of the jailing of Warren Jeffs. It's possible to criticize police action without condoning child marriage within the FLDS.

That was much of it. The FLDS ran a website with a URL along the lines of "Free the FLDS Children", or something like that. It was a collection of images of the mothers and children wailing as they were taken from the community, that the PR-spinners had ripped from news sites and videos, as well as a store tab where you could buy authentic FLDS-sewn dresses. They pushed it as a religious freedom issue, and it effectively distracted from the child marriage thing. It resulted in a lot of pushback because it did present the police and government as completely wrong and out of hand. The problem is, once people found out the police had been wrong about "Sarah" and the children were returned soon after, and the only person being held accountable was Warren Jeffs, I think there was a general write-off that this was still happening. Memoirs and court meetings said differently, but the consensus I felt was that the police had gone in on a whim after something that only happened with one man. Now, it's barely discussed at all, though more and more horrifying information is coming out via those same sources.

I disagree with PregnantPornStar in that I think conversation about the sect has died down, and that's my main point. I see less conversation about all women who are being forced into underage marriages than I see derision about it occurring in MENA countries. I think advocacy should be for all of them instead of just one religious group of women, no matter its size, and it is dangerous to think it is limited to Muslim countries.

ETA: Sorry for the MAJOR thread drift! Also I made a major edit so I'm sorry if quotes don't reflect that.

[FundieFarmer]

I'm just gonna leave this right here. :?

Yikes.

[latraviata]

Welcome to Europe!

[bBvideo 560,340:i77vg8yi]https://vimeo.com/140292635[/bBvideo]

[Firiel]

Islamaphobic propaganda, FTW.*

:doh:

*This is very definitely a sarcastic use of that phrase, in case anyone was uncertain.

EDIT: When I think about what the background music would be for a video where a bunch of European immigrants reach Ellis Island and are crying/screaming with joy or what the background music would be for a video where people are shown either trying or succeeding to cross the Berlin Wall, despite the fact that it was not allowed, I realized just how blatantly propagandist that video was. Islamaphobic with a side of good ol' racism, the likes of which I haven't seen since the Black Lives Matter media coverage died down.

[OkToBeTakei]

Latraviata showing her rather old and tired racist/bigoted knickers again .......fun times :lol:

[Firiel]

Latraviata showing her rather old and tired racist/bigoted knickers again .......fun times :lol:

But she's right! It's completely inappropriate for black men to smile and celebrate when they've reached a country where they will have opportunities and where they don't have to deal with the violence of a war happening all around them!

[Terrie]

Latraviata showing her rather old and tired racist/bigoted knickers again .......fun times :lol:

It would be easy to match her propaganda film with one aimed at illegal imimgrants in the US, African Americans, Jews through out the world, Communists, Catholics, any-group-who-has-been-Othered.... But, frankly, I have a low enough opinion of humanity as it is. More and more, what creeps me out is anyone who opposes a pluralistic society. Monoculture is just not healthy.