No, they just shuffled them off to new locations where they could molest more children. Christian extremeists are not above death threats either. Madalyn Murray O'Hair received thousands of them, had her home vandalized, and her children attacked for challenging the constitutionality of state-sponsored school prayer.

Of course, Islam is much worse, but I really wish folks here understood why. Primarily it is because the power of the Christian church has been limited over the last few hundred years by the humanistic and liberal values of the Enlightenment. It was easier for Christianity to accomodate this shift than it will be for Islam, since there is no scriptural basis in Islam for separation of religion and state as there, arguably, is in the New Testament. Still, if you look at Christendom before the Enlightenment, it had much more in common with the Umma than with our modern era.

Posted by: Hugh Bristic at December 11, 2004 5:46 PM

Hugh bristic,

You seem like a new poster here, dunno how long you've been on JW/DW but the moral and cultural equivalence /relativism issues you raise have been debated, analysed and reconciled in these forma on multiple occasions.

To put it simply, your assertions don't wash. What're you trying to say, finally - that bcause the pre-enlightenment church was monstrous, Islamic excesses are somehow not-so-bad atleast relatively speaking? Come off it dude, we live in the third millenium now.

And there's an implicit "Universal declaration odf Human Wrongs" - stuff that includes the likes of slavery (Mauritania, Sudan, Yemen, Saudi etc), genocide (Darfur and christian areas of southern sudan, turkish armenia etc), child abuse (Pakistan, Morocco etc) which CANNOT be brushed under any cultural/religious cloak and made to look milder than the horrors they truly are.

Comparing past christianity with current islam is an old tactic to induce guilt in those who recognise jihad for what it is but themselves bear no personal responsibility for (and are not proud of) the inquisition or witchburnings.

Posted by: voletti at December 11, 2004 6:58 PM

re: " There were 500 complaints this year of abuse allegedly committed by clerics, Aamer Liaquat Hussain, a minister in the religious affairs department, said.

That compares with 2,000 last year, but as yet there have been no successful prosecutions, Mr Hussain told the BBC. "

These two statements would imply that the sexual abuses taking place in Pakistan's madrassas are happening in lesser frequency - or the numbers of reported incidents are declining.

I can't help but wonder if there are fewer incidents being reported because (as this BBC article states): "as yet there have been no successful prosecutions, Mr Hussain told the BBC."

Not only isn't there an incentive to report the abuse . . .it is clearly 'dangerous' if not altogether 'deadly' to do so.

Read the following article about a fourteen year old Pakistani madrassa student, Abid Tanoli (now 17) that refused the advances of his madrassa's religious scholar.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/08/wpak108.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/08/ixworld.html

Current information along with graphic photos about this young man can be found at:

http://www.newsline.com.pk/NewsJuly2003/newsbeat6july.htm
http://www.uri-geller.com/charity/2004/may/laser.htm

Posted by: justamomof4 at December 11, 2004 7:12 PM

Since Mohammed was a heterosexual pedophile
and the Church had homosexual pedophiles abusing children do you think Muslims will be just as harsh on Muslim pedophiles as they want for non-Muslims homosexual pedophiles.
When you see the truth about the Palestinians murdering Gays in public you start to see the
roots of Islam in many areas of abuse and hatred for those that are perceived to offend Allah and the Quran.
Now that Canada may re-define marriage as two persons loving each other,Al-Qaeda will do to Canda what it's doing in Holland and Spain.
Their overt hate for non-Muslims or Gays will drive their inner rage to murder for Allah.

Posted by: ala-sux at December 11, 2004 7:45 PM

voletti,

You should not make assumptions about what I am saying based on what others have said. Try reading what I wrote instead. I am not a relativist in the sense that you are making me out to be. As I stated, Islam is worse than Christianity. As I implied, Western culture is at least 300-400 years more "evolved" than Islamic culture. The West and its values are better than Islamic culture and its values. The abuses of religious zealots in this country pale beside what goes on in Muslim countries, but this does not make them any less abuses. My post was merely to make the point as to why this is.

However, your reflexive defensiveness and unwillingness to criticise the abuses of religious zealots in your own country, makes you a hypocrite. The death threats against Ms. O'Hair may well have occurred in your lifetime. The murder of abortion doctors and gays by the likes of Eric Rudolph certainly did. The harrassment, intimidation and discrimitaion against atheists in this country who stand up for their right not to be taxed to support religious indoctrination is an ongoing problem. "Well, boo hoo, poor little non-believer, why don't you go to Saudi Arabia and see how you like them there apples," seems to be your response.

Why should you expect our Muslim brothers to be any more receptive to criticisms of their beliefs if you are so unquestioning of your own? I don't care if you feel guilty or not. I do care that you respond to active instances of injustice with disapprobation, and that you do so not only when it is injustice perpetrated by "the other."

Posted by: Hugh Bristic at December 11, 2004 9:48 PM

Hugh Bristic

All countries where religion is predominant are open to abusing those people who are non-believers. I've heard of a case where an atheist in South Carolina had his home surrounded by bible belt christians telling him to repent.

Religion is just Theo-fascism, and just as some fascists like Mussolini weren't as bad as Hitler; christianity is not as bad as Islam.

I agree with what you've said in your posts, but this forum is about the threat of Islam to the west, and that is our concern here.

The day that christianity tries to restrict my freedom in the same way that Islam is trying to do, then I will be out there fighting christianity too.

Posted by: Voltaire at December 11, 2004 10:12 PM

Nicely put, Voltaire.

And Hugh bristic,
I did notice the mitigating stuff you said in your post .

I'm no religious fundametalist, btw. And I do not condone any religious excesses by christianity. I do fear islam's excesses simply because there'so counterweight to them - no free press, no educated populace, nothing at all that can cause that to stop. And just as child-abuse by catholic priests in the US is fact, so is the fact that you would'nt like them apples in Saudi either. So before you go insinuate that I am averse to critisizing christianity and hurl labels like 'hypocrite' around you probably wanna examine your beliefs to begin with.

And like votaire says, this foru is about the dangers represented by islamism. Christianity is a dying force in most of the world anyway, not too much to fear from its excesses, such as they are.

Posted by: voletti at December 11, 2004 10:24 PM

Sorry to go OT, blistering attack on the UK religious hatred proposal by that wonderful newspaper, The Telegraph. Do read it, it's a must:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/12/11/do1101.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/12/11/ixop.html

Posted by: Interestd at December 11, 2004 10:29 PM

At last a Pakistani Muslim has dared to say what happens in the Madrassas where poor boys get buggered by 'Holy Men!' Despite Death threats!!
Am sure numbers quoted are just tip of an iceberg
but courage of Minister must be applauded. Hopefully others will dare to speak out despite ever present threat of Jihadi Bomb or Beheading knife...

Posted by: Morgane at December 12, 2004 1:41 AM

Voletti, "humanistic" (that hijacked word) culture doesn't practice abuse because when it starts practicing something its grandparents decried as "abuse", there's a noisy campagin made to declare the one-time "abuse" to be "normal", "healthy", "loving", and worhty of the most solicitous protection of the law.

Posted by: Kepha1 at December 12, 2004 3:02 AM

I understand that this is a forum on the abuses of Islam, but I assume you don't want it to just be an amen choir. I mean don't you get tired of reading "Man, Islam is one f*&^% up religion!" I empathize, but what is the point?

I raise this issue because it is vital to know what we are protecting as well as what we are fighting against. There are those who, judging by their posts, seem to think that what we are protecting is Christendom, not just against the Muslims, but against those crazy, left-wing kooks at the ACLU. I don't give I rip about Christendom.

I care about modernity. I care about my right to do things you may not approve of, but that don't cross the line into keeping you from doing what you want to do. I care about humanism--the belief that human values as expressed by the decisions of individuals in a free marketplace should be the basis for law, not the fiat of some non-existent God. I mean, if God doesn't exist, decisions in a God-based polity are really based on authority, tradition, and/or the group--like they are in the Umma.

I hear you saying, "Yeah, but Christians don't want to take over government. You're being paranoid." Really, well why do you think such seemingly petty things like "In God we Trust" and the Ten Commandments are such flashpoints. It is because, based on the words of those advocating for them, they signal that we are a nation "under God", that God is the basis for our rights and liberties. I mean, why do you think W poses with the Muslims at Interfaith prayer breakfasts and the like? Because, deep down he sees that Islam and Christianity both base their conception of rights and responsibilities on the dictates of God and he is ecumenical enough to think that he can find common ground for a God-based polity with them. He fails to see the real problem. If God has revealed the truth to you, what is the point of compromise. Why should I respect your opinion and listen to you? Nothing you say can change my mind, because my mind was fashioned in crystal perfection by the unerring hand of God.

God is not an adequate basis for law because, sorry to say, He doesn't exist. So does that give you the right to do whatever you want now?

Sorry, I've got to get to church
:-), so I don't have time to tidy this up. Hope I haven't made to many obvious blunders in my free association rant.

Posted by: Hugh Bristic at December 12, 2004 10:44 AM

The tragedy of Hugh Bristic's pride in his liberal humanism is that when the liberal humanists fall down on the job of protecting democracy and free speech for every one, not simply their cause of the day clients, every one suffers, inevitabley. Trying to deflect the argument, complaing about the stain of the carpet when the house is burning down makes me think Mystic Bristic should find himself another place to pick his nits. He's trivial and irritating, not a case of a man genuinely concerned about people's rights but in being seen as cooler than thou, meaning me.

Well sorry, bud, I have no interest in being fashionable in the presence of my friends--who would still tolerate me even if they disagree with me. You, posing and preening here, don't have anything to contribute. Go home to your mother. Poke your eyes out. Do something useful.

Posted by: sonofwalker at December 12, 2004 5:19 PM

"Mystic Bristic" ... "Go home to your mother. Poke your eyes out."

Is this really the level of discourse on this forum?

I would hope not.

I greatly admire Robert Spencer's efforts to inform the public of the danger of Islamism. He is a brave man, and I'm sure he gets many death threats. But what I appreciate more than anything is the fact that despite this, he faces off with his ideological enemies with a calm and measured tone that makes him more likely to be listened to. I doubt he'd agree with me on a lot of what I'm saying, but I don't think he'd resort to name calling. Or, at least, if he did, he'd do it with more originality and flair than sonofwalker.

Posted by: Hugh Bristic at December 12, 2004 7:56 PM

Well hot-shot, it seems all my in-jokes refering to the hubris that informs the works of Sophocles and the other great Greek tragedeans pass over your head. Try reading once in a while, and then return to lecture me.

Posted by: sonofwalker at December 12, 2004 10:48 PM

Sonofwalker wrote:

The tragedy of Hugh Bristic's pride in his liberal humanism is that when the liberal humanists fall down on the job of protecting democracy and free speech for every one, not simply their cause of the day clients, every one suffers, inevitabley.

Sophoclean ironies aside, this was something that caused a terrible "crisis of conscience" for a good number of us who were raised as secular liberals. Add to it the tendency of the same bunch to "define deviancy downward" (I was in earnest in another post about whether I might live long enough to see Mo and Aisha praised as an example of the "beauties" of paedophilia by those who today find it disgusting), and you see why things like militant Islamicism get their entry into our society.

By the way, Hugh Bristic, I do indeed think blasphemy a serious sin, even if we don't live in the ancient Israelite theocracy (it died in 70 AD, to make room for the Messianic age). People who have no respect for the sacred sooner or later have no respect for the ordinary. Maybe one reason why our modern culture takes such a great pleasure in the abasement and destruction of public figures (especially when they aren't protected by the pathetic, tinfoil cult of the "great leader" that marked 20th century totalitarianism) is that casual blasphemy has taught us that tearing down and being disrespectful is "fun". Indeed, one thing I see in secular liberalism is that it is destructive of just about anything that isn't a convicted murderer or a criminal state (these get rewarded with life-long taxpayer funded retirements on the one hand; and "negotiations" or "constructive engagement" on the other). Indeed, the way you get your agenda passed in a secular liberal order is to make a lot of noise, and when that doesn't work, threaten--the secular liberal powers that be will cave in if you keep at it.

Posted by: Kepha1 at December 13, 2004 2:44 AM

Kepha1, I'm glad you wrote. I've been throwing meatphorical stones at you recently to get your attention in matters concerning Christians across the face of the Earth, those outside the protection of the civilized world, those who don't have anything to prove or anything to gain by being marytrs.

Most of us are willing to put aside our differences for the sake of doing whatever we can to save children from the worst abuses by ideological collaborators in our midsts, those who apologize for the vileness of religiously condoned and even approved pedophilia, by at least engaging in public debate so as to tear away the dirty covers of Islamic appologies. Some, like the fool above, are so determinedly committed to posing in the eyes of their friends that nothing else will effect them. They have no morals and no souls. Pedrsonally, I'm willing to disregard them and carry on with those I feel I can work with to make some improvement in the lives of the people who are first line victims. I become defiled by engaging with creatures such as hubristic, a fool who doesn't even understand the meaning of that word but who is, like so many posers, anxious to fling himslef into any debate at all simply to be seen and to brag later to his friends about his fdragon-slaying.

If you, and if your friends, have any practical plan to act on behalf of, for example, your fellow Christians in Egypt, Copts though they are, I will be at your service in any way that I can benefit your cause, i.e. the cause of Coptic Christians murdered and raped and enslaved by the Islamic monster that now rules in the lands of what was one of the greatest sources of Christianity, in terms of doctrine and simple believers.

I'll do what I can to save the very lives of Christians in the Middle East from the Moslem masses. But it's not something I'm going to take up as a cause that consumes my time entirely. You, being committed to Christianity, have, I think, some higher interest in the Copts in particular, and thier need is great and urgent. I'll do what I can to help you, though I believe your church and your vast laity have strength enough to save them witjhout my help at all. I have to wonder why the American Christian community isn't doing everything possible to bring those Christians from Egypt and Iraq to America. That would be my solution.

Every man's death diminishes me, but I accept it. What I do not accept is murder and slavery. That befouls me. We have to choose our battles, and I am hopeful you'll make a commitment to your fellow Christians in the Middle East. They have no future there. Not now. When the apocalypse unfolding before us is clear, then perhaps the Copts and other Christians can return. For now all is death there. I'll urge you again to step in to save those you can. I will assist you if I can.

Posted by: sonofwalker at December 13, 2004 1:01 PM

sonofwalker,

Okay. I take it back. You're a genious.

Posted by: Hugh Bristic at December 13, 2004 2:36 PM

er... genius

Posted by: Hugh Bristic at December 13, 2004 2:41 PM

O.k., sport. I feel sort of relieved that you wrote back, that you checked your mail, so I can say I was particularly harsh with you simply because I'm not a nice guy at all.

Well, that's no peace offering at all. Let me try again.

My spelling and typing suck. You're not much better. We do indeed have something in common. Join me for some debate on the current page. I might be a tough guy but I'll give you credit wherever you deservee it, according to me, which is only worth what credence you give my opinion.

Al I ask from anyone is that they realize we're not dealing here with ideas but with the lives of real Human being, you beings one, as I'll try to remember.

How was my spelling?

Posted by: sonofwalker at December 13, 2004 5:32 PM

Hey, genious, change that name. A hubristic character is one who is so full of pride that he brings on the destruction of himself and those all around him.

Posted by: sonofwalker at December 13, 2004 5:38 PM

Son of Walker: As a matter of fact, I am a person without much clout--save with the people to whom I teach English. However, I have signed several online petitions on behalf of the Copts and Assyrians. I have also written on my own to the Egyptian Embassy, basically along the lines that the abduction of girls and women to convert them to Islam is unworthy of a country recognized as the cradle of civilization--but in character with that Pharaoh whom both Bible and Qu'ran condemn as an enemy of God.

You will not find the name Kepha on the petitions because it is a pseudonym.

By the way, when I can publish a piece on these things, I do it.

Posted by: Kepha1 at December 14, 2004 12:32 AM