'Moderate' Muslim Country Jails Two for Publishing Mohammed Cartoons
Two editors of a Jordanian newspaper have been sentenced to jail for publishing cartoons depicting Mohammed, the man Muslims claim was a "Prophet".Remember, Jordan is held up as a model moderate Islamic country. In fact, Jordan is moderate....but isn't it sad that this is what passes for moderate in the Islamic world? Nowhere in the Islamic world is there anything that passes for freedom of speech. Nowhere. Khaleej Times:
A Jordanian court Tuesday sentenced to prison two newspaper editors for “attacking religious sentiment” by reprinting cartoons deemed offensive to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), their lawyer said. Jihad Momani, former editor of the weekly Shihane tabloid, and Hisham Al Khalidi, editor-in-chief of the tabloid Al Mehwar, “were each sentenced to two months in prison,” attorney Mohammed Kteishat told AFP.Reporters Without Borders had this tepid reaction:
Reporters Without Borders protested today against two-month jail sentences imposed yesterday by a Jordanian court on two journalists, Jihad Momani and Hisham Al-Khalidi, for reprinting cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that appeared in a Danish paper last year and expressed concern about journalists being harshly punished for doing so. “This is the first time journalists have been given prison sentences for reproducing the cartoons,” the worldwide press freedom organisation said. “The sentences are totally out of proportion. We hope they will be reduced on appeal. We urge other Muslim countries where journalists are being prosecuted for this not to follow Jordan’s example. Journalists must not be punished for their editorial decisions. The two journalists in this case were simply doing their job by choosing to reproduce the cartoons, like dozens of other media outlets around the world.” [emphasis mine]Hopefully, this is just a translation error. Does the group wish their sentences to be reduced or overturned? If the former, then Reporters Without Borders is agreeing to the notion that states have the right to censor that which offends our religious sensibilities--just not harshly. Perhaps a one-week sentence would seem appropriate? If the latter, then I fully agree. Freedom of religion must include the right to criticize religion--even if that criticism is deemed offensive. If I do not have the right to criticize your religion, then I am not fully free. In my opinion, Muhammed was a pedophile and a pervert. Worse, he started a religion which rejects the concept of separating church and state and which--from it's founding--condoned the use of military conquest for spreading faith. Next to Communism, political Islam has contributed to more deaths than any other ideology in history---perhaps even more. Please indict me. I dare you. Unfortunately, there is not a single Muslim country where I am fully free to say the above. Hat tip to Robert Spencer who has more.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 10:03 AM
Posted by: john ryan at May 31, 2006 10:08 AM
Christians and Muslims were on about the same level in the Dark Ages, and the fact that Muslims are still stuck there doesn't seem to bother you, but it is telling in my opinion.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 31, 2006 10:28 AM
As for "pedophile": do you have any idea what the sexual age of consent was in Europe at the time that you are criticizing Mohammed? Do you have any idea what it was on the American frontier in 1840?
You are guilty of committing the same intellectual sin that leftwing historians do when they casually label our Founding Fathers "racist" and "sexist" as if modern standards of morality can be cavalierly applied to different historic periods. I'm not saying that Slavery wasn't racist; just that people need to be judged within their own historic context. We probably do something today that will be judged as immoral five hundred years from now (eating animals? Taxing income?).
And I'd love to see you count up the deaths that Islam has caused, versus those caused by Christianity and Communism. You got a source for that claim?
Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 10:38 AM
stop apologizing for your little brown munchkins. Christianity spread through evangelism, not the sword like islam did. So it's hard to argue islam didn't kill vastly more people than christianity did.
Regardless, communism is dead, and christianity has evolved. That leaves islam still stuck in the 7th century. You can't bullshit your way around that simple fact.
We know what we see with our own eyes and aren't going to disregard that in favor of your Leftwing pussyfutting and standard apologies for the munchkins.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 11:38 AM
You're right...the Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the forced conversion of native Americans to Christianity...just fun and games, right?
I'm not going to sit here and defend islam (definitely responsible for a great deal of misery the world's seen), but I don't think you can whitewash Christianity's darker moments.
Posted by: Venom at May 31, 2006 11:58 AM
Well, I'll admit I don't know, but I would also be willing to say it wasn't nine. Talking about literally robbing the cradle.
As for the deaths caused by jihad, it is incalculable and is still racking up hundreds of thousands every couple of years or so(see Darfur, for example).
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 31, 2006 12:09 PM
you are ignorant. The inquisition occurred in CHRISTIAN Europe and did not spread christianity, it enforced it. The inquisitors did not constitute vast christian armies but mere individuals. So it should be obvious to anybody but the most obtuse of Leftards how ignorant your example was.
The Crusades also did not spread christianity but attempted to recover previously christian lands that had been conquered by the muslims. Those previously christian lands were christianized by the spreading of the Gospels through evangelism beginning in the 1st century A.D. and coming to an abrupt and grinding halt around the 7-8th century when Mohammedan armies burst from the Arabian peninsula began their global jihad.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 12:09 PM
The Crusades, though, is a bit more debatable. I mean, while they were technically about recapture, a lot of violence was done in the name of Christianity. That, I think, it the more fundamental point.
Posted by: Venom at May 31, 2006 12:19 PM
the history of christianity is a bloody one as well. But just because it doesn't have clean hands doesn't mean you can analogize the two religions. One was founded by a crucified messiah and the other by a sword-bearing prophet. That had real consequences.
The christianizing of South America is a debatable point. Do you have evidence that the indians were forced into christianity at the point of the sword? I doubt it. You should watch "The Mission." It's a true story and represents the christian model of evangelism in the New World.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 12:28 PM
That being said, I'll keep my eyes open for The Mission.
Posted by: Venom at May 31, 2006 12:34 PM
How damn ignorant are you? the crusades (there were SEVERAL) were intended in part to wipe out pagans in Europe (some up in Germany, btw). The reconquista part of the second crusade was designed to push back the Moors into Africa (it eventually succeeded). Those who refused to convert or leave were KILLED.
Conversion in Latin America was often at swordpoint or upon threat of enslavement. You are using the MISSION as a historical source? Well, even in that the church is divided between those who want to convert by force and those who do not.
Then there is the long history of pogroms and mass killings of Jews who refused to convert.
Islam's origins were different, and they did have the kind of easy relationship between military and religious authority that has not always been the norm in modern christianity. But plenty of people were converted to Christianity at swordpoint throughout the long bloody history of that religion.
Did you really not know that?
Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 12:56 PM
"Age of consent" referred in the late nineteenth century to the legal age at which a girl could consent to sexual relations. Men who engaged in sexual relations with girls before they reached the legal age of consent could be found guilty of statutory rape. American reformers were shocked to discover that the laws of most states set the age of consent at the age of ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was seven. Women reformers and social purists initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, although their ultimate goal was to raise the age to eighteen. The campaign ultimately proved very successful; by 1920 almost every state had raised the legal age of consent to either sixteen or eighteen.
Above is from
Written by three researchers at SUNY Bingham.
The point is, Joe, you and Rusty are using modern definitions of pedophilia to condemn Mohammed, when it is not clear that he consumated it, and even if he did, the same and younger girls were frequently married in Christian societies INCLUDING OUR OWN.
Did you know that?
Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 01:07 PM
No, I did not know that. I don't accept most of what you state as fact to be fact. Show me where "plenty" of people were converted to christianity at swordpoint.
In Latin America the indians were enslaved not by the church but by the seculars (your buddies). Nobody was killed for refusing to convert. I'll stand by that.
If christianity has blood on it's hands you'll notice that it didn't start with its founders but by people thousands of years later who mucked things up. Not so with Islam. Right out of the gate it was a violent religion. And still is.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 01:15 PM
And leftards are assholes all the time.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 31, 2006 01:15 PM
Posted by: john ryan at May 31, 2006 01:17 PM
Posted by: greyrooster at May 31, 2006 01:19 PM
Posted by: john ryan at May 31, 2006 01:23 PM
In 1492, the same year that Columbus would "discover America", the Spanish Catholic Church emerged from several centuries of warfare against the muslims victorious, with immense wealth and authority second only to the crown. The Spanish Monarchy wanted to use the church to achieve a national unity as well as control in the newly discovered American continent. The absolute right of the Spanish kings was to nominate all church officials, collect tithes and found churches and monasteries in America. Pope Julius had awarded this privilege to the Spanish monarchs to assist them in converting New World "heathen".
Accompanying the conquistadors during the initial conquest was a priest that would read a requirimiento to the indians in Latin or Spanish and after this formality the Spaniards were allowed to pillage and plunder. The requirimiento was the only warning the natives had although they could not understand the language and sometimes it was not read in their presence. The document stated that the indians would have to surrender unconditionally or face the consequences of slavery or death. Excerpts from a Requirimiento (the document they read)
"...we will not compel you to become Christians, unless after being so informed regarding the truth, you desire to be converted to our faith..."
"But ...if you do not do this...I will come among you powerfully and make war upon you everywhere and in every way that I can"
"I will take your persons, your women and children, and will make slaves of them and sell them or dispose of them as their Highness shall command"
"...the damage and death which you suffer thereby shall be your own fault and not the fault of their Majesties, nor of mine, nor the knights who accompany me."(Braden,127)
The priests that came to the New World were faced with the enormous job of converting the millions of indians who were at that time worshiping various pagan deities. The priests used several strategies for conversion. Many conversions were forced with the help of Spanish soldiers. Many other conversions didn't last very long with the indians slipping back into their ancient faiths. However the indians that had been converted and relapsed back into their old religions could now be tried as heretics by the inquisition and many were condemned to death.
Do you believe me now, Carlos?
Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 01:23 PM
They are the "reality-based community." Amazing how they'll deny present bloodshed under islam in favor of past bloodshed under christianity. It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that islam are little brown munchkins, while christianity is evil whitey, now would it?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 01:24 PM
Posted by: john ryan at May 31, 2006 01:25 PM
Joe and Carlos, if you still don't believe us, please take a look at these books about Latin America:
Braden, Charles S. Religious Aspects of the Conquest of Mexico
Camp, Roderic. Crossing Swords: Politics and Religion in Mexico 1997
Both should be in any library of decent size, and both are at Amazon.
Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 01:26 PM
Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 01:29 PM
Posted by: john ryan at May 31, 2006 01:32 PM
Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 01:36 PM
I accept your account of how SOME catholics used force to convert SOME indians. But I don't accept that as the norm for how christianity spread. That is most certainly not how it spread into most of the world, and I doubt it was even how it predominantly spread in the Americas.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 01:38 PM
How do you think it spread into Germany? Roman might. Into Spain?
Islam was not always promulgated at swordpoint, either. Many millions in world history have chosen it (one could question how much politics/economics played into that--one could say the same about Christianity in many "peaceful" conversions.)
what sources do you offer to back up this belief?
I'm in agreement, by the way, that all or almost all converts to Christianity in the last 30 years have been peaceful, and one could not say the same about Islam.
Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 01:47 PM
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 31, 2006 01:51 PM
Rusty, if you're not going to jump in on this, how about another gang war topic so we can watch? You know, for shits & giggles.
Posted by: Venom at May 31, 2006 01:56 PM
I don't get it. Either you knew, and were being deceitful in using this as a cudgel against Islam, or you didn't know, and are now pretending that you did. Which is it?
Would it be so hard to say--you know, I didn't realize that child brides were present in Europe and even in America as late as the 20th century. I guess, while there are many reasons to oppose various Muslim practices today, calling Mohammed a pedophile as if that wasn't something our own culture used to sanction, is kind of a red herring.
Is that what you are saying?
Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 02:02 PM
Rusty's thread topic was his personal opinionized view of islam. Why some feel necessary to change the argumentive direction towards Christianity says more about them than about Christianity or islam!
I'm an educated man - I am aware of and can slam Christianity's past as well as or better than most .... but that was not what the topic was about!!! Those who did it ... did it for their own personal reasons and hostilities towards Christianity.
I know the lib/left better than most .... to them personally, islam is a backward primative joke .... but they are deeply afraid of it ... and their multi-cultural relativistic mindset dictates that they outwardly "understand" it ... its how they make themselves feel good about themselves - and superior to the rest of us.
Attacking/confronting Christianity for them is safe, self-delusionally enlightened, and smugly progressive.
Ignore them - I do. If Rusty simply rewrote the thread and substituted something else for islam ... their responses would have been exactly the same. Quite pathetic actually.
Posted by: hondo at May 31, 2006 02:03 PM
I'm not a scholar, but I am a student of history. And christianity at the point of the sword doesn't fit into what I know about world history. That doesn't mean you won't find examples, but I don't believe your example was the norm for the Americas, nor do I believe the Spaniards/Portuguese were the norm for christianity.
You state as fact that "Roman might" imposed christianity on Germany. On what do you base that? Feelings? That isn't historical. It's no more historical than saying "Roman might" spread it to Ireland. Just as christianity was spread to Ireland by Saint Patrick, it was spread to Germany by Saint Boniface. Essentially wandering monks. THAT is typical of how christianity spread.
Islam is a whole nuther story. Muslim armies raced out of Arabia in the 7th century and never looked back.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 02:06 PM
But let's assume you are mostly right--(although I'm certain you are wrong about the Spaniards in the Reconquista and in latin America, based on impeccable sources)--Islam was primarily sold at the end of a sword. Christianity, by contrast, was only half sold at the end of the sword.
ok, so what? what does that tell us about either religion today? My entire point is that Islam is not backward because of its uniquely bad history. It is backward because of its failure to address modernity the way Christianity did. There is unimaginable evil and brutality in the story of Christianity. Christians who deny this are violating the commandment about not lying. You do not judge the worth of a religion by what happened 700 years ago.
Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 02:20 PM
It is Islam that I am interested in. You all would do well to remember that Persia and Bzyantium were the two superpowers in the World when Mohammed and his followers came riding out of the desert. These two great empires fell to Islam, and Islam conquered by force almost the entire Mediterranean basin.
The Crusades did not begin for 400 years AFTER Christians had been attacked and conquered by the jihad in what is today Israel, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, all of North Africa, Spain, southern France, large parts of Italy, and do I need to go on? The conquests of Afghanistan and India by the Muslims is a whole other subject, but suffice it to say a mountain range in Afghanistan is named after the slaughter. To have a mountain range named for the murder and enslavement of the Hindus and Buddhists says a lot about how great the killings were. This might just be the largest number of people ever killed for religion.
So the Crusades were nothing more than an attempt to retake the Holy Land. Were the Christian soldiers perfect? No. Did they commit atrocities? Absolutely. But to say Islam and Christianity are somehow equal is moral equivalence I don't swollow. But somehow liberals and Leftists do.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 31, 2006 02:26 PM
I'll tell you exactly what it tells us. It shows how the blood on christianity's hands isn't built into the religion itself but is rather the result of human failings; while in Islam, forcible jihad IS built into the religion and forcible conversion is not human failing but obedience to their religion. Do a google search on "jihad" "Koran" and "verses" and you'll see how predominant the idea of jihad is in the Koran and Islam. Until you can show me where islam has reformed itself, please don't tell me that it didn't influence how Islam spread in the past, and today.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 02:30 PM
Charlemagne was engaged in almost constant battle throughout his reign, with his legendary sword Joyeuse in hand. After thirty years of war and eighteen battles—the Saxon Wars—he conquered Saxonia and proceeded to convert the conquered to Roman Catholicism, using force where necessary.
The Saxons were divided into four subgroups in four regions. Nearest to Austrasia was Westphalia and furthest away was Eastphalia. In between these two kingdoms was that of Engria and north of these three, at the base of the Jutland peninsula, was Nordalbingia.
In his first campaign, Charlemagne forced the Engrians in 773 to submit and cut down the pagan holy tree Irminsul near Paderborn. The campaign was cut short by his first expedition to Italy. He returned in the year 775, marching through Westphalia and conquering the Saxon fort of Sigiburg. He then crossed Engria, where he defeated the Saxons again. Finally, in Eastphalia, he defeated a Saxon force, and its leader Hessi converted to Christianity. He returned through Westphalia, leaving encampments at Sigiburg and Eresburg, which had, up until then, been important Saxon bastions. All Saxony but Nordalbingia was under his control, but Saxon resistance had not ended.
Following his campaign in Italy subjugating the dukes of Friuli and Spoleto, Charlemagne returned very rapidly to Saxony in 776, where a rebellion had destroyed his fortress at Eresburg. The Saxons were once again brought to heel, but their main leader, duke Widukind, managed to escape to Denmark, home of his wife. Charlemagne built a new camp at Karlstadt. In 777, he called a national diet at Paderborn to integrate Saxony fully into the Frankish kingdom. Many Saxons were baptised.
In the summer of 779, he again invaded Saxony and reconquered Eastphalia, Engria, and Westphalia. At a diet near Lippe, he divided the land into missionary districts and himself assisted in several mass baptisms (780). He then returned to Italy and, for the first time, there was no immediate Saxon revolt. From 780 to 782, the land had peace.
He returned in 782 to Saxony and instituted a code of law and appointed counts, both Saxon and Frank. The laws were draconian on religious issues, and the native traditional religion was gravely threatened. This stirred a renewal of the old conflict. That year, in autumn, Widukind returned and led a new revolt, which resulted in several assaults on the church. In response, at Verden in Lower Saxony, Charlemagne allegedly ordered the beheading of 4,500 Saxons who had been caught practising paganism after converting to Christianity, known as the Bloody Verdict of Verden or Massacre of Verden. The massacre, which modern research has not been able to confirm, triggered two years of renewed bloody warfare (783-785). During this war the Frisians were also finally subdued and a large part of their fleet was burned. The war ended with Widukind accepting baptism.
Thereafter, the Saxons maintained the peace for seven years, but in 792 the Westphalians once again rose against their conquerors. The Eastphalians and Nordalbingians joined them in 793, but the insurrection did not catch on and was put down by 794. An Engrian rebellion followed in 796, but Charlemagne's personal presence and the presence of loyal Christian Saxons and Slavs quickly crushed it. The last insurrection of the independence-minded people occurred in 804, more than thirty years after Charlemagne's first campaign against them. This time, the most unruly of them, the Nordalbingians, found themselves effectively disempowered from rebellion. According to Einhard:
The war that had lasted so many years was at length ended by their acceding to the terms offered by the King; which were renunciation of their national religious customs and the worship of devils, acceptance of the sacraments of the Christian faith and religion, and union with the Franks to form one people.
If you care, he had five wives, one of whom he never divorced while getting the others, one which was annulled. He also had five known concubines.
It would appear to me that Boniface wasn't so successful as you imagine, if Charley had to come along and lop off thousands of heads (damn heathens) before there was a Christian Germany.
You can remain believing that Christianity was mostly spread peacefully. Many people need to believe things.
Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 02:31 PM
Good point, Carlos, and well put.
Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 02:37 PM
I tip my hat to your intellectual honesty. You have thereby earned a large measure of credibility points for the future.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 02:40 PM
But today? no contest. The treatment of women under most interpretations of Islam is an obscenity. The way I like to put it to liberals is this: if Saudi Arabia treated blacks the way it treats women, you would demand sanctions, as you did against South Africa....
Of course, many liberals are open to that argument. It is the oil companies who could never give up our saudi friends...
Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 02:41 PM
Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 02:52 PM
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 31, 2006 03:09 PM
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 31, 2006 03:12 PM
As it turns out, wasn't necessary. Good stuff by both Carlos & jd.
But I still think Rusty should put up another Crips vs. Bloods thread. :P
Posted by: Venom at May 31, 2006 03:50 PM
Posted by: Vinnie at May 31, 2006 06:48 PM
Most of us on this blog are classical Liberals. Today that's what we call 'conservative.' While most (but not all) Liberals today are actually Leftists. They just don't know it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 09:20 PM
Posted by: Macktastick Wicked at May 31, 2006 09:27 PM
Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 09:36 PM
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at May 31, 2006 10:23 PM
You said: "Nowhere in the Islamic world is there anything that passes for freedom of speech. Nowhere."
On the contrary, the free press is flourishing in...Iraq.
Posted by: Don Long at May 31, 2006 11:01 PM
All in the same breath we can well use today's standards to judge Muhammed all we want. I've read in too many books how men like Muhammed and others who had sex with children, no matter the legality, were described as a lecher. Even then moral people were creeped out by such behavior. It was merely not illegal. And more often children were married off to other children when royalty was involved for the purpose of maintaining good relationships between nations. In other instances female children were married off to older men simply because they were burdens to the family. They couldn't pull a plow. And the older man, who was usually more financially endowed, was able to satify his lust for prepubescent girls while the girl's family shed their burden and gain a prominent ally. The need for that outweighed the disgust for such men.
And if I had my druthers, if I had to choose between the two religions (which I won't), I'd go with the nice guy who preached love and chastity rather than the guy who drooled at the thought of having sex with a nine year old in between ordering his army to kill everyone and take their stuff. But that's just me.
Posted by: Oyster at June 01, 2006 08:01 AM
Posted by: jesusland joe at June 01, 2006 08:24 AM
That would be awesome. Bluto's dropped the ball this week.
Help me Vinnie, you're my only hope...
Posted by: Venom at June 01, 2006 08:34 AM
from your own link:
"As has been said, the Spaniards train their fierce dogs to attack, kill and tear to pieces the Indians. It is doubtful that anyone, whether Christian or not, has ever before heard of such a thing as this."
Obviously, according to your own source, christians weren't even aware of such practices by conquistador thugs.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 01, 2006 08:48 AM
This is not to say it's an excuse for others doing it against them because it's always been wrong no matter who the aggressors are. I'm just rounding out the story a little better by not equivocating.
Posted by: Oyster at June 01, 2006 09:16 AM
notice also that it was a CHRISTIAN MONK (de Las Casas) who was recounting the atrocities in protest that they were happenning. He was trying to raise awareness about it! lol!
Nice try, john.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 01, 2006 09:31 AM
Instead the usual suspects attacked Chritianity with the "OH Yeah! Well how about those ..." argument - an argumentive approach none of us would accept from a child.
Pretty much shows you where their heads are at.
Posted by: hondo at June 01, 2006 10:44 AM
Their heads are "reality-based", no?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 01, 2006 11:25 AM
However, I don't think your at all accurate about child marriage in antiquity or Middle Ages, or even early modern period. Child to child marriage among royalty may be what we know best if we know anything about it at all, but girls of menarche age to adult marriages were so widely tolerated in this country up until 100 years ago that when we got around to codifying it, it was set at 7 in delaware, at 10 and 12 in other states. If you read the article I linked to, it was a class based anger that finally got the law changed, as you do suggest.
But the broader truth is--we have extended adolescence far beyond the limits of 1000, 1250, or even 1920. One became an adult at marriage on the American frontier. Some girls were married at 10, and had three children by 16 or 17. Their husbands might be 40, or they might be 15 at marriage. One reason for marrying young was the absolute ban on premarital sex (although not as observed as you might think). The other was the short lifespan. When the lifespan was 40 or so, it made sense to marry before 20. Long before 20. Also, the high number of women who died in childbirth led to many marriages of 15 year old girls to 55 year old men on their third or fourth wives.
Many things that today would cause us disgust were common. If they could see our century, though, it would shock the bejeesus out of 19th century Americans how we have infantilized 16, 20, and 24 year olds. A 16 year old woman might have been a pillar of society in 1850 with 2 kids. A 22 year old "girl" today is usually still dependent on her parents for her finances, and if she marries a 50 year old, society deeply frowns on him.
(Grover Cleveland married a woman decades younger than him, while he was president. I think she was 19, and he was in his 50s. She was among the most beautiful women of her day. Imagine that happening today? Sexual morals rapidly evolve.)
Posted by: jd at June 01, 2006 01:08 PM
But beyond that, men in past times who wed or bed children, I mean 'prepuscent children', were always on the edge of acceptability. Convenience and necessity often overrode individual morality and all sorts of justifications ensued. When you speak of 55 year old men wedding 19 or 20 year old women it cannot be even remotely compared to a 55 year old man bedding a 9 year old child because she started her period a little earlier than most girls. And there is recorded documentation I've read that girls indeed did mature physically earlier then than now. But only by a year or two at most. The average age for girls now is 13. centuries ago it was closer to 11 or 12. Age 9 has always been extremely young. We won't even get into emotional maturity.
I think what you're doing is taking exceptional circumstances and depicting them as a norm. In early America and even in earlier Europe, wealthy families generally strove to get their female children educated first. They went to the finest schools, segregated of course, but educated nonetheless. Girls of wealthier families were not nearly as often subjected to forced marriage to men old enough to be their fathers or grandfathers. When they did it was to unite two prominent families and the girl almost always hated it and the man certainly loved it. Most of the child brides were of poorer families. It was based more on necessity and convenience due to the lack of financial means to do things differently.
100 years ago and more in this country the "age of consent" was sometimes vague. Consent was given by parents in writing if the child was 'underage' and they were often part of an unrecorded promise of money or goods from the male's family or he himself. Generally the age of consent, ie. without parental consent, was 14 for males and 12 for females. And even that was pushed to be abolished and changed to 17 for males and 14 for females by the mid 1800s in many states. Your example of 7 years old for Delaware was certainly not the norm. You can't take the most extreme of circumstances and pretend that "well everyone was doing it" because that's simply not the case.
Posted by: Oyster at June 01, 2006 04:09 PM
I have consistently read, also, that due to good diet, girls are reaching menarche much earlier today than ever before. Some lefties also attribute the rapid drop in age of first menstruation to the presence of hormones in our food. I don't know if that's moonbat shit crazy, but no one is contesting that girls aren't menstruating much earlier on average.
there's a very interesting book on the subject of evolving sexual norms, by Foucault, called The History of Sexuality. In it, he argues that homosexuality was invented in the 1870s. Wait, don't laugh. What he means is the idea of the homosexual as a distinctive scientific class, as an identity, first arrived in western consciousness at that time. A behavior became an "other", an identity. The same argument is made about race: that "whiteness" as a separate identity did not exist in the ancient world, and only came into being in the 16th and 17th centuries, as the new rationalistic vision of science turned upon itself, upon man.
What I'm trying to do is suggest that our current categories (legal age of sex, for example) are distinctly arbitrary in a broad historical sense. We experience moral outrage, apparently, when a 55 year old marries a 16 year old. That would be a laughable concept to someone 150 years ago. But I agree with you that 9 was probably the very rare exception in early modern history. It would not have been criminal though in the medieval Europe that was contemporaneous with Mohammed, and it was not unknown, at all. therefore, it is just a cheap political stunt, propaganda, and manufactured outrage to call Mohammed a "pedophile". That has been my point all along.
Posted by: jd at June 02, 2006 08:18 AM
Leftards still believe what the Christians did 500 years ago has something to do with what the muslims are doing today. You leftards have appartently forgiven the Mongels, Huns, Goths, Arabs, Commies, etc. Why can't you forgive the Christians? Because you are sick and it doesn't suit your leftist, anti-American views does it.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 03, 2006 05:56 AM
Posted by: greyrooster at June 03, 2006 05:58 AM
Posted by: Kim Jong Il at June 03, 2006 02:17 PM
Posted by: Oyster at June 03, 2006 03:25 PM
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0103 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0035 seconds, 72 records returned.
Page size 62 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.